3M CO: Suits Over Surgical Warming Blanket Coordinated in Minn.---------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat about 70 lawsuits filed over a widely used surgical warmingblanket that plaintiffs lawyers say spreads infections have beencoordinated in Minnesota.

A federal judicial panel on Dec. 18 coordinated cases brought overthe Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming system made by 3M Co. into amultidistrict litigation proceeding before U.S. District JudgeJoan Ericksen. The Bair Hugger blows hot air through a blanket inorder to maintain a patient's normal body temperature duringsurgery. The suits allege that the Bair Hugger disrupts the airventilation in the operation room, leading to infections,particularly in hip and knee surgeries, which have led toamputations and multiple surgeries. They claim that 3M, based inSt. Paul, has been aware of the contamination problem since 2009.Genevieve Zimmerman -- gzimmerman@meshbesher.com -- a partner atMinneapolis-based Meshbesher & Spence, who filed a motion on Aug.21 to coordinate the Bair Hugger litigation into an MDL, saidscientific literature "in reputable places" has found that theBair Hugger device has resulted in a "disproportionate rate ofdeep joint infection."

"While a slight risk of infection might be expected, a substantialincrease in the rate of infection because of the use of thisdevice is not something any of these patients would have consentedto or agreed to if they knew there was an alternative," she said.

More than a dozen additional cases have been filed in Minnesota'sRamsey County District Court, where Judge William Leary hascoordinated the litigation and set the first scheduling conferencefor Dec. 22.

"In contrast to the typical medical device mass tort litigationinitiated by outside events -- such as FDA action or the discoveryof new risks published in independent, peer-reviewed studies --these cases present the unprecedented circumstance of productliability litigation concocted by lawyers and based on the falseand misleading claims of the inventor of the device and nowcompetitor," wrote 3M lawyer Lori Cohen, chairwoman of thepharmaceutical, medical device and health care litigation practicegroup at Greenberg Traurig, in a Sept. 14 court filing before theMDL panel.

In 2010, 3M acquired Augustine's company for $810 million.Augustine now sells a competing product that doesn't use forcedair.

In November, acknowledging a substantial uptick in new filings, 3Macquiesced to coordinating most of the litigation in Minnesota,but it refuted any ties that the Bair Hugger has to increasedrisks of infections. 3M has said the Bair Hugger is essential topreventing hypothermia during surgeries, and multiple scientificstudies have found it reduces infections.

"In fact, in over 25 years and more than 200 million patientswarmed successfully by 3M's patient warming products, there's nota single confirmed incident of infection caused by the Bair Huggersystem," said 3M spokeswoman Donna Fleming Runyon. "We'revigorously defending these Bair Hugger Warming system lawsuitsbecause there is no merit to the claims that the Bair Huggerproduct causes surgical site infections."

Although two cases have been pending since 2013 and 2014, the vastmajority have been filed in the past four months. Plaintiffslawyers have said in court filings that there could be hundreds ofcases.

Ms. Zimmerman acknowledged that some patients with hip and kneeimplant surgeries have reported infections but insisted that theBair Hugger litigation is separate. She also denied thatAugustine has any connection to the litigation.

"I suspect he has a complicated relationship with 3M, but thatdoesn't mean he's wrong about what's happening with the BairHugger litigation," she said.

Daniel Curry and three other named plaintiffs sued Amazon.com andCourier Logistics Services on Jan. 5 under the Fair LaborStandards Act.

Amazon contracts with Courier Logistics Services to employhundreds of drivers in Phoenix, Curry et al. say. They say theytypically worked five to 10 hours of overtime per week, withoutappropriate pay.

Here are some of the requirements of their jobs, according to thecomplaint:

They had to deliver packages within two hours for Amazon Primemembers who placed orders on the Amazon Prime Now app, or withinone hour if the customer paid an additional fee.

"Delivery drivers reported to and worked exclusively out of anAmazon warehouse."

"Delivery drivers are required to wear shirts and hats bearing theAmazon Prime Now logo and Amazon and Courier Logistics providedelivery drivers with a smart phone pre-loaded with the Prime Nowmobile application."

They are "required to report to the Amazon warehouse 15 minutesbefore their scheduled start time," but are not paid for those 15minutes.

They must check in with the dispatcher at the beginning of eachday, and check out at the end.

"Amazon decides which packages will be assigned to deliverydrivers and makes their work assignments."

"Delivery drivers cannot reject work assignments."

The drivers make the deliveries in their own personal vehicles.

Curry et al. say that both Amazon.com and Courier LogisticsServices acted as their employers and each company had theauthority to set their wages, hire and fire them, and controltheir working conditions.

Drivers were paid $16 per hour and were classified as independentcontractors. They say the app allows customers to tip drivers,who "are prohibited from accepting cash tips," but the driversnever received the full amount of tips customers left for them.

They estimate there are more than 300 current and past employeesof Amazon.com and Courier Logistics Services who may qualify asclass members.

Shortly after changing its name from WellPoint in December 2014,Anthem's 401(k) plan represented one of the largest in thecountry, with $5.1 billion in assets and 59,000 participants, thecomplaint states.

Three Indiana-based beneficiaries of the plan claim in the Dec. 29class action that Anthem and its board of directors fumbled theirbargaining position to allow "unreasonable expenses," whichparticipants must shoulder, for the plan's administration.

The lawsuit alleges that some investments included fees upwards ofthree times higher than the cheaper options. Citing data from theU.S. Department of Labor, just one percentage point of higher feescan negatively impact a 401(k) plan by 28 percent over the courseof 35 years, the plaintiffs say.

Though lower-fee investments had been available for years, itwasn't until 2013 that Anthem restructured its plans to offer theless-fee intensive options, according to the complaint.

Had Anthem chosen cheaper investments between December 2009 andJuly 2013, "plan participants would not have lost over $18 millionof their retirement savings through unnecessary expenses," thecomplaint states.

As for failing to make smart and prudent investments, the classclaims that Anthem simply failed to explore the clear advantages,such as safety and higher returns, available through otherinvestments.

The complaint specifically targets an investment called the"Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund," which it claims was a riskierand lower-yielding option compared with some alternatives thatcould have been included within the 401(k) plan. In fact, byplacing that investment in a better option, "plan participantswould not have lost over $65 million in their retirement savings,and continue to suffer additional losses to the present, as aresult of the fund being retained in the plan," the complaintstates.

In addition to the alleged improper fees and investments, thelawsuit also seeks damages for Anthem's failure to monitor theamount another company charged it to manage plan records.

Bell and the other beneficiaries say Anthem paid investment groupVanguard for recordkeeping services, using two models of paymentprior to September 2013. One model was a simple fee paid for eachparticipant; the other was called an "asset-based revenue-sharingplan," which paid Vanguard fees based on the total size of theinvestment. Because the total investment grew from $3.3 billionto $5.1 billion during the timeframe, Vanguard collected growingfees for the same work, the complaint states.

The class also suggests that the flat-rate fee was over twice ashigh as should be reasonably expected. Anthem has more recentlyswitched to a flat $42 per-person payment to Vanguard, but theclass says even that is too high, as an estimated payment ofaround $30 would be reasonable.

In addition to damages for Anthem's failure to properly monitorthese payments, the class wants a reimbursement of all allegedplan losses. It is represented by:

The plaintiffs in Weiss v. Bank of America alleged that Bank ofAmerica directed mortgage borrowers to private mortgage insuranceproviders in exchange for a kickback of the private mortgageinsurance payment, funneled through their affiliated reinsurer,Bank of America Reinsurance Corp., according to the opinion filedby U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon of the Western District ofPennsylvania.

In its motion for dismissal, Bank of America argued that theplaintiffs' claims were time-barred because the four-year statuteof limitations in the federal Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act had run when they closed their mortgages in 2006and 2007. The plaintiffs filed their claims in 2015.Additionally, Bank of America claimed the plaintiffs failed toshow that the statute could be tolled.

The plaintiffs argued they did not learn of the alleged schemeuntil 2012, but Bank of America countered they should have knownafter receiving and signing their mortgage documents.

According to Judge Bissoon, Bank of America claimed the loandocuments, which the plaintiffs received in 2006 and 2007,contained a "risk sharing mortgage insurance disclosure,"explaining that their lender may, directly or through anaffiliated "reinsurance company," enter into other risk-sharingcontracts with the private mortgage insurance company insuringtheir loans.

That, Bank of America argued, should have put the plaintiffs onnotice. According to Judge Bissoon, Bank of America furtherargued there were news articles on the subject that were publiclyavailable as well as other lawsuits alleging identical schemes andgovernmental investigations into those schemes -- all resourcesavailable to the plaintiffs.

Judge Bissoon said Bank of America had met its burden inestablishing that there was information available to alert theplaintiffs to the possibility of omissions or misleadingstatements. The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to showthat they heeded the information with due diligence, but stillwere injured.

The plaintiffs pointed to the 2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for theThird Circuit decision in In re Community Bank of NorthernVirginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, abbreviated by thecourt as Community Bank III.

"The Community Bank III court held that, while 'reasonablediligence is a fact-specific inquiry,' it is also the case that'when a wrongful scheme is perpetrated through the use of commondocumentation, such as the documents employed to memorialize eachputative class member's mortgage loan, full participation in theloan process alone is sufficient to establish the due diligenceelement' of an equitable-tolling argument," Judge Bissoon said.

Judge Bissoon added that the court was aware of the ThirdCircuit's holding that tolling inquiries are largely fact-specific, and she ruled that in this case, the plaintiffsestablished a plausible claim that they exercised their duediligence.

"Plaintiffs have pleaded full participation in the loan process;nothing more is required at the pleadings stage," Judge Bissoonsaid.

Bank of America also attacked the plaintiffs' standing to bringRICO claims -- ultimately resulting in the judge siding with theplaintiffs -- and additionally claimed the plaintiffs failed toplead a RICO violation.

The defendants claimed the plaintiffs did not establish theelements of an "enterprise" or "any predicate acts ofracketeering."

However, Judge Bissoon disagreed. "Here, plaintiffs allege morethan bilateral agreements between lenders and private mortgageinsurers. Rather, plaintiffs allege the existence of a continuousunit, depicted graphically in the complaint," she said.

The charge was filed on Dec. 30, first assistant district attorneyKevin R. Steele announced at a press conference in Norristown. Hesaid the charge stems from a sexual assault that took place at Mr.Cosby's home in early 2004.

Mr. Cosby was arraigned on Dec. 30 in Elkins Park beforeMagisterial District Judge Elizabeth McHugh. His bail was set at$1 million, and Cosby posted $100,000 before being released.

Mr. Steele said the statute of limitations on aggravated indecentassault is 12 years, allowing the prosecution to go forward. Hesaid Mr. Cosby created a relationship with the victim, AndreaConstand, through her employment at Temple University.

According to Mr. Steele, Mr. Cosby had previously made two sexualadvances toward Constand before the assault, which she rejected.During the 2004 encounter, Steele said, Cosby urged Constand totake pills and provided her with wine.

Mr. Steele said the charges were filed as a result of newinformation coming to light in July, when U.S. District JudgeEduardo C. Robreno of the Eastern District of Pennsylvaniaunsealed a number of court documents related to the civil caseConstand filed against Mr. Cosby. Those documents includedportions of the deposition Cosby gave, in which he admitted toobtaining prescription depressants in order to have sex with awoman. Mr. Constand and Cosby reached a confidential settlementin 2006.

The unsealed filings provided information about allegations byother victims under similar circumstances, Mr. Steele said. Whenthat took place, he said, "reopening this case was not aquestion."

Mr. Steele said the DA's office is also examining evidence relatedto other alleged victims.

Allegations

According to an affidavit of probable cause included with thecomplaint against Mr. Cosby, the assault took place sometime inJanuary or February 2004. Shortly afterward, Ms. Constand movedto Canada with her mother, Gianna Constand. In January 2005, theaffidavit said, Ms. Constand told her mother about the assault.

When Gianna Constand called Mr. Cosby and asked what he did to herdaughter, the complaint said, he apologized and offered to coverthe cost of therapy. According to the affidavit, during thatcall, Mr. Cosby did not identify the drug he gave Andrea Constand,but he admitted to fondling her breasts, digitally penetrating hervagina and placing her hand on his penis.

On a later call with Gianna Constand, the affidavit said,Mr. Cosby asked if Andrea Constand was still interested inbroadcasting, and expressed an interest in helping her financiallywith her educational goals.

The affidavit said Cosby's representative provided a statement inwhich he confirmed that Cosby asked him to contact Gianna Constandand arrange for her and her daughter to meet Mr. Cosby in Florida.The representative said he had previously made similararrangements with other women on Mr. Cosby's behalf.

When police interviewed Mr. Cosby in 2005, he said he gaveAndrea Constand over-the-counter Benadryl, the complaint said, anddescribed the incident as a consensual sexual encounter.

When asked if he had sexual intercourse with Mr. Constand, theaffidavit said, Mr. Cosby answered, "'never asleep or awake.'"

The affidavit said it is undisputed that Mr. Cosby gave pills toMr. Constand and that he fondled and digitally penetrated her.But, it said, Mr. Cosby told Mr. Constand the pills were "herbal,"told her mother it was a prescription and told the police it wasover-the-counter Benadryl.

"Only Cosby knows whether the pills were indeed, Benadryl, as healleged, or a prescription or illicit drug with even greaterpotential to render someone incapacitated," the affidavit said."Cosby's deliberate efforts to conceal the nature of the pills hesupplied to his unsuspecting victim are inconsistent with innocentbehavior and demonstrate his consciousness of guilt."

Mr. Constand's allegations were first reviewed by formerMontgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. in 2005,the complaint noted, but Mr. Castor announced there would be nocriminal charges in February of that year. Mr. Constand suedMr. Castor earlier in 2015, alleging that he defamed her bytelling media that her statement to police differed from her civilclaims.

In an emailed statement, Ms Constand's attorney, Dolores Troiani,expressed appreciation to the Montgomery County DistrictAttorney's Office, county detectives and the Cheltenham PoliceDepartment.

"We have the utmost confidence in Mr. Steele, Ms. [assistantdistrict attorney Kristen] Feden and their team, who haveimpressed us with their professionalism," Ms. Troiani said.

Patrick J. O'Connor of Cozen O'Connor, who represented Cosby inConstand v. Cosby, did not return a call for comment on Dec. 30.

Civil Suits

Mr. Cosby is facing several civil lawsuits by his accusers. Manyof the suits allege that Cosby defamed his accusers by denyingtheir claims through his media representatives.

Renita Hill, a Pittsburgh woman, filed suit against Mr. Cosby inthe Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in October, allegingthat Cosby repeatedly drugged Ms. Hill and sexually assaulted herstarting when she was 16 years old. She asserted claims ofdefamation, defamation per se, false light and intentionalinfliction of emotional distress for statements Mr. Cosby and hisattorneys made saying that her allegations against him wereabsurd. Her case was transferred to the U.S. District Court forthe Western District of Pennsylvania.

Ms. Hill's attorney, George M. Kontos, said the charges againstCosby are "encouraging." The criminal investigation may revealinformation that is helpful to his client in her civil litigation,he said, although he noted that the cases are different.

"Our case is a defamation case, it's not a criminal matter,"Mr. Kontos said. "To the extent that it's proven or determined bya criminal tribunal that those assaults took place, it wouldbolster our civil claim."

Mr. Kontos noted that it's conceivable that Ms. Hill or otherwomen with similar claims would be called as witnesses.

A group of seven women, Tamara Green, Therese Serignese, LindaTraitz, Barbara Bowman, Joan Tarshis, Louisa Moritz and AngelaLeslie, is suing Mr. Cosby in Massachusetts federal court, alsoalleging defamation. Before Mr. Robreno unsealed parts of theConstand docket, this group had served a subpoena on Ms.Constand's attorney seeking documents related to them.

Fashion model and television personality Janice Dickinson broughta defamation case against Mr. Cosby in May, also in Los AngelesCounty.

In November, Kristina Ruehli filed a federal suit inMassachusetts, also alleging defamation, and that Mr. Cosbydrugged and sexually assaulted her in 1965. Actress Kathy McKee,who appeared on "The Bill Cosby Show" in 1971, alleged that Mr.Cosby raped her in 1974. She filed her defamation suit pro se.

Just before Ms. Green, who was later joined by the other sixwomen, sued Mr. Cosby, Judy Huth filed a complaint in the LosAngeles County Superior Court alleging childhood sexual abuse in1974. Model Chloe Goins filed a suit in October, alleging Mr.Cosby drugged and assaulted her in 2008 when she was 18 years old.

Gloria Allred is representing Ms. Huth, as well as 28 other Cosbyaccusers who have not filed civil suits. In a statement onDec. 30, she noted that the standard of proof for a criminalproceeding is higher than that for a civil case. She added thather clients will be willing to testify if the prosecutors find itrelevant and admissible.

Ex-DA Disputes Plaintiff's Defamation Claim

Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports thatin an answer to a defamation complaint, former Montgomery CountyDistrict Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. has said his statementsabout a Bill Cosby accuser were true, including statements thather allegations to police differed from her civil claims, andtherefore do not form a basis for the lawsuit.

Mr. Castor, who was district attorney from 2000 to 2008, has filedhis answer to Andrea Constand's complaint, which allegeddefamation and false-light invasion of privacy. Ms. Constandaccused Cosby of sexual assault in 2005, and filed a civil suitagainst the comedian after Castor declined to bring criminalcharges. Ms. Constand and Cosby reached a confidential settlementin 2006.

Mr. Castor was a candidate for district attorney in the mostrecent election, but his bid to return to the position wasunsuccessful. His attorney is Robert C. Pugh of Kane, Pugh,Knoell, Troy & Kramer in Norristown.

In his answer, Mr. Castor said he is not a proper party to theaction because Ms. Constand alleges he made his statements tofurther his campaign. If so, Mr. Castor's answer said, thestatements were made by Friends of Bruce Castor Inc., and Castorhimself should not have been named as a party.

The answer said Mr. Castor did not attempt to thwart a 2015investigation into Cosby, as was alleged in Ms. Constand'scomplaint. It said Castor only made statements of facts that werepresent in court records, so he did not invade Ms. Constand'sprivacy.

According to the civil complaint filed by Ms. Constand's lawyers,Dolores M. Troiani and Bebe H. Kivitz, Castor allegedly conveyedand implied that Ms. Constand was inconsistent in her accusationsof Cosby and exaggerated her claims. The complaint requestsjudgment in excess of $150,000 for each of the two counts, plusattorney fees, interest, costs, punitive damages and other relief.It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Districtof Pennsylvania.

Ms. Constand's complaint said Mr. Castor announced in February2005 that he had declined to prosecute Mr. Cosby, and failed tonotify Constand prior to doing so. But recently, the complaintsaid, Castor used Ms. Constand's allegations in his politicalcampaign. Ms. Constand alleged Mr. Castor's statements "portrayedplaintiff as having filed a lawsuit which was false andexaggerated," and caused her emotional distress and an invasioninto her private life.

With regard to news stories based on his statements to the media,Mr. Castor said the articles are writings that speak forthemselves and "all allegations related to such document aredenied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial."

One story referenced in the complaint was The Associated Pressarticle in which Castor is quoted saying the District Attorney'sOffice "'"might have been able to make a case,"'" out ofMs. Constand's statement to police if it had been the same as hercivil allegations. Ms. Constand's complaint alleged that justbefore he spoke to AP, Castor learned Cosby's criminal case wasreopened because the alleged crime is a felony, allowing a longerstatute of limitations.

In his answer, Mr. Castor denied that he ever learned the DistrictAttorney's Office had reopened the case.

When Ms. Constand filed the complaint, Castor questioned thetiming. He alleged the Constand complaint was designed to affectthe outcome of the local election, which took place about a weekafter the lawsuit was filed.

Mr. Castor also said in October that he did not bring the Cosbycase into his political campaign, and had only responded toallegations by his opponent, current first assistant districtattorney Kevin R. Steele. Mr. Steele won the election fordistrict attorney.

CEPHALON: Trial to Begin Feb. 2 in King Drug Case-------------------------------------------------Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports thata federal judge has refused to stay the upcoming trial in areverse-payment settlement antitrust case while the remainingdefendants await the Third Circuit's review of a classcertification ruling.

Trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 2, 2016, in the case King DrugCo. of Florence v. Cephalon, a long-running suit by severaldifferent classes of plaintiffs who argued the reverse-paymentsettlements Cephalon entered with four generic pharmaceuticalcompanies to delay the entry of a generic version of Provigil tomarket was anti-competitive and caused them to pay more for thedrug.

The suit and related litigation over the Provigil settlements haveresulted in a number of settlements of its own, including some ofthe parties to this suit previously settling for $512 million andthe Federal Trade Commission settling similar claims againstCephalon for a record $1.2 billion. And the judge overseeing thecase, U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania, has denied class certification tocertain plaintiff groups.

Defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Ranbaxy Laboratories, two ofthe generic pharmaceutical companies that entered into theProvigil settlements, are the only defendants remaining in King,which was filed in 2006.

Judge Goldberg wasn't in complete disagreement with Mylan andRanbaxy's arguments for a stay.

The pharmaceutical companies argued the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit's acceptance of their interlocutory appeal showsa likelihood of their success on the merits of that appeal. Theycited statistics that the Third Circuit rejects more than 80percent of such appeals and that, of those that are accepted, themajority result in reversals of the lower court's ruling.

Judge Goldberg said he stands by his decision certifying the classof direct purchasers, but said he agrees the case presents a novelissue of law as it relates to his application of the U.S. SupremeCourt's decision in Comcast v. Behrend.

The plaintiffs argued, however, that the direct purchaser class isnot the only group suing Mylan and Ranbaxy. Even if the courtreverses the class certification, they argued, the pharmaceuticalcompanies would still have to go to trial against the individualplaintiffs and pharmaceutical company Apotex. Judge Goldbergagreed this weighed against Mylan and Ranbaxy's argument that theywould waste resources going to trial when there was a chance theclass could be decertified. Judge Goldberg also noted the trialis on the issue of liability, not damages, further weighingagainst the defendants' concerns of irreparable harm.

Judge Goldberg also rejected the defendants' arguments that a staywould harm all parties because the proper plaintiffs would beunknown during trial. The judge recounted the nearly decade-longlitigation, multiple delays and the time and resources theplaintiffs have expended in preparing for the trial. He said astay would likely push the case back to 2017 given the ThirdCircuit hasn't yet issued a briefing schedule. Judge Goldbergsaid the harm to the plaintiffs if a stay was issued outweighs theharm to the defendants if he doesn't issue the stay.

"This case is simply too complicated, with too many competinginterests to satisfy each parties' views regarding trial structureand scheduling," Judge Goldberg said. "After nine years,plaintiffs are entitled to their day in court."

C. Fairley Spillman -- fspillman@akingump.com -- of Akin GumpStrauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C., represented Mylan.Attorneys at Venable LLP in Washington represented Ranbaxy. Callsto both firms were not immediately returned. Attorneys at GarwinGerstein & Fisher in New York represented the plaintiffs and wereunavailable for comment.

CHINA GREEN: $2.5MM Shareholder Case Settlement Okayed------------------------------------------------------Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that afederal judge in Reno, Nev. ordered fertilizer company China GreenAgriculture -- the first Chinese company to be traded on the NewYork Stock Exchange -- to pay $2.5 million to settle a shareholderclass action.

China Green was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2009,under the CGA symbol. Shares closed at $1.27 on Jan. 8.

Lead plaintiff Frederic Elliott sued CGA in October 2010, claimingits directors lied to investors about the company's profitability,its ability to maintain an annual gross profit margin of 55percent to 60 percent, and other financial matters, which inflatedthe stock price.

China Green in 2014 agreed to settle the class action for $2.5million.

On Jan. 7, U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks ordered China Green todeduct $40,712.32 in preparation fees for Epiq Class Action &Claims Solutions, plus taxes, from the $2.5 million settlementfund and proceed with the disbursement.

Epiq has been identifying and notifying qualifying class membersto prepare for the disbursement.

Settlement amounts will be at least $10; class members whoseshares of the settlement are less than $10 receive nothing, asidefrom a letter from Epiq explaining why they weren't paid.

Class members acquired common stock of China Green Agriculturebetween May 12, 2009 and Jan. 4, 2011.

After deducting fees and taxes and eliminating claimants whoqualify for less than $10, Epiq will calculate the distributionamounts for the remaining class members and mail checks that aregood for 90 days.

Six months later, Epiq will recalculate and redistribute anyremaining funds to those class members who qualify for at least$10 upon a second distribution and who cashed their checks fromthe first disbursement. If a third distribution is necessary, thatwould occur at least six months after the second, and any fundsremaining after that would go to a designated nonprofitorganization.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Criminal Probe Over Norovirus Outbreak--------------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that Chipotle has been served with afederal subpoena as part of a criminal investigation tied to anorovirus outbreak at one of its restaurants in California.

The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Officefor the Central District of California in conjunction with theFood and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigations,the company said in a filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on Jan. 6.

The subpoena, received last month, requires the company to producea broad range of documents tied to a restaurant in Simi Valley,California, that was the source of a norovirus outbreak this pastAugust, it said.

A Chipotle spokesman, Chris Arnold, said in an email the companydoes not discuss pending litigation, but that it intends tocooperate fully with the investigation.

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. has been reeling since an E. colioutbreak linked to its restaurants in late October and November,which was followed by a separate norovirus outbreak at arestaurant in Boston in December. The cases have received farmore national media attention than the norovirus outbreak inCalifornia.

Chipotle said sales plunged 30 percent in December. The companyexpects sales to fall 14.6 percent at established locations forthe full fourth quarter, marking the first decline since thecompany went public in 2006.

To rehabilitate its image, the company has taken out full-page adsapologizing to customers in dozens of newspapers around thecountry. It has also vowed changes to step up food safety at itsrestaurants.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sales Plunge Following Series of Food Scares--------------------------------------------------------------Candice Choi, writing for The Associated Press, reports thatChipotle reported a sales plunge of 30 percent for December aftera series of food scares at its restaurants and disclosed that afederal criminal investigation tied to the sickening of customershas begun.

The company said in a regulatory filing that it was asked toproduce a broad range of documents tied to a norovirus outbreakthis summer at its restaurant in Simi Valley, California, butdeclined to provide further details.

It said the investigation does not involve a more recent E. colioutbreak tied to its restaurants that sickened people in ninestates, or a separate norovirus outbreak in Boston.

The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Officefor the Central District of California in conjunction with theFood and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigations,according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon Jan. 6.

A representative for the U.S. Attorney's office declined tocomment. Representatives for the FDA did not respond to a requestfor comment.

The emergence of a criminal investigation after a norovirusoutbreak is unusual, said Bill Marler, a food safety lawyerrepresenting Chipotle customers who were sickened in Simi Valley.

Outbreaks at restaurants are typically caused by an infectedemployee.

Mr. Marler couldn't think of a reason for a federal investigation,other than employment violations.

The disclosure of the investigation comes as Chipotle MexicanGrill Inc. reels from E. coli outbreaks in late October andNovember, which were followed by the sickened customers at arestaurant in Boston in December. Those cases received far morenational media attention than the California incident, and thecompany's sales have since plunged.

Sales fell 14.6 percent in the fourth quarter, marking the firstdecline for the company since it went public in 2006.

Last month, Chipotle also said it could no longer reasonablypredict sales trends given the food scares and retracted itsforecast for 2016.

In its regulatory filing on Jan. 6, the company said it could notdetermine or predict the amount of any "fines, penalties orfurther liabilities" it might face in connection with the federalinvestigation.

A Chipotle spokesman, Chris Arnold, said in an email the companydoes not discuss pending litigation, but that it intends tocooperate fully with the investigation.

Doug Beach, a manager of the food program at Ventura County'sEnvironmental Health Division, said the U.S. Attorney's officerequested records from the his office regarding the Chipotle caseabout a month ago.

"That was a first for us," Mr. Beach said in a phone interview.

Mr. Beach said Chipotle had been cooperative with the county'sinvestigation, which uncovered issues such as unclean equipmentand employees without the necessary food handling permits.

He also noted that Chipotle started getting complaints aboutillnesses on Aug. 18, and shut down its restaurant the followingFriday. Yet the company did not alert the county of the matteruntil Jan. 2 -- after it had already reopened the restaurant, Mr.Beach said.

To rehabilitate its image, Chipotle has taken out full-page adsapologizing to customers in dozens of newspapers around thecountry. It also vowed changes to step up food safety at itsrestaurants, in part by tweaking its cooking methods andincreasing testing of meat and produce.

Co-CEO Steve Ells has said the company will likely never know whatingredient was to blame for the E. coli cases.

The fast-food chain announced the first outbreak in August 2015after 100 employees and customers in one of its Californiarestaurants were infected with the norovirus.

On Sept. 4, 2015, Ventura County health inspectors blamed theoutbreak on dirty and inoperative equipment at a Chipotle locationin Simi Valley, Calif. Weeks after that first incident, 64 peoplefell ill in Minnesota from tomatoes at Chipotle restaurants thathad been tainted with salmonella. Additionally, in November 2015the company closed all its restaurants in the Portland, Ore., andSeattle areas after customers reported 20 cases of E. coli. Thelatest health scare occurred just last month when more than 140Boston College students fell ill from norovirus after eating at aChipotle.

Though negligence lawsuits over these outbreaks have been pilingup for the past five months, the lawsuit lead plaintiff Susie Ongfiled Friday marks the first securities case against the Mexicanrestaurant chain over the illnesses.

In addition to claiming that Chipotle had inadequate qualitycontrols to prevent four separate outbreaks of salmonella andnorovirus, Ong says the company misled investors about the extentof those outbreaks.

Ong's suit also names co-CEOs Steven Ellis and Montgomery Moran asdefendants, as well as CFO John Hartung.

Though Chipotle stock was trading at about $745 per share on Aug.18, 2015, the number fell to roughly $548 on Dec. 9, 2015,according to the 19-page complaint.

Ong says Chipotle did not adequately test its quality-controlprograms after the initial health scares.

After the Minnesota salmonella outbreak in November, the companyissued a press release stating it would sanitize all itsrestaurants and test all produce and fresh meat. However, thefollowing month the Boston norovirus outbreak occurred.

Enhancements to Chipotle's food-safety programs that it announcedon Dec. 4 included partnering with Seattle-based IEH Laboratoriesand Consulting Group to bolster food safety. As part of the newprogram, the company initiated end-of-shelf-life testing foringredients to ensure food quality.

Ong's lawsuit came two days after Chipotle announced that it facesa federal investigation regarding the Simi Valley norovirusoutbreak. The company also announced a decline in sales over thelast quarter of about 30 percent.

Since its opening in 1993, Chipotle now has nearly 2,000restaurants under its belt. Its slogan is "putting the food backin fast food."

A spokesman for Chipotle declined to comment, citing a companyabout ongoing litigation.

In a federal complaint filed in 2013, lead plaintiff Peter Velascoclaims the 2008 Chrysler 300 and 2011-2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee,Dodge Durango and Dodge Grand Caravan have defective IntegratedPower Modules that cause the vehicles not to start and the enginesto stall while driving.

Velasco and his fellow class members moved for injunction reliefin 2014, asking that Chrysler be required to notify them of theknown risks associated with its vehicles. Both sides attachedconfidential discovery documents filed to support and oppose theinjunction, which was eventually denied by the district court.

The Center for Auto Safety -- a Washington, D.C.-based lobbyinggroup -- intervened in the case and filed a motion to unseal thedocuments, arguing that only "compelling reasons" could keep thedocuments under seal.

On Jan. 11, two of the three members of a Ninth Circuit panelagreed with the Center for Auto Safety and overturned U.S.District Judge Dean Pregerson's ruling that Chrysler only neededto show "good cause" to keep the documents under seal.

Under normal circumstances, a party seeking to seal a judicialrecord must provide compelling reasons for the confidentiality.The Ninth Circuit, however, has carved out an exception for sealedmaterials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the meritsof a case. When documents are attached to such "non-dispositive"motions, the party seeking to seal is only required to show "goodcause" for the confidentiality. Writing for the panel majority,U.S. Circuit Judge John Owens, said Pregerson misinterpreted caselaw to limit the "compelling reasons" test to only thosesituations in which the motion is literally dispositive and bringsabout a final determination.

These include motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, and forjudgment on the pleadings.

Under this literal interpretation, the public would not bepresumed to have regular access to much of the litigation thatoccurs in federal court since most of it falls outside of thenarrow category of "dispositive," Owens wrote.

"Although the apparent simplicity of the district court's binaryapproach is appealing, we do not read our case law to support sucha limited reading of public access. Most litigation in a case isnot literally 'dispositive,' but nevertheless involves importantissues and information to which our case law demands the publicshould have access," Owens said.

Rather, precedent presumes that the compelling reasons standardshould apply to most judicial records, which ensures the public'sunderstanding of the judicial process and of significant publicevents, according to Owens.

Plenty of technically nondispositive motions -- including thepreliminary injunction in this case -- require the court toaddress the merits of the case, often include the presentation ofsubstantial evidence, and sometimes may even determine the outcomeof a case, Owens said.

In this case, "(i)f plaintiffs had succeeded in their motion forpreliminary injunction, they would have won a portion of theinjunctive relief they requested in the underlying complaint, andthat portion of their claim would have been resolved," Owenswrote.

Therefore, because the motion should have been considereddispositive, Chrysler must demonstrate compelling reasons, ratherthan good cause, to keep the documents under seal, Owens said.

In a dissenting opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said thatthe majority "invents a new rule, namely that a party cannot keeprecords under seal if they are attached to any motion that is'more than tangentially related to the merits of the case,' unlessthe party can meet the 'stringent standard' of showing thatcompelling reasons support secrecy."

There is nothing ambiguous about the circuit's bright line rulethat calls for the presumption of the public's right of access tobe rebutted when a party attaches a sealed document to anondispositive motion.

The majority's theory "that we are not bound by the literalmeaning of the words in our opinions would, of course, deprive ourprecedent of any binding force. Such a theory erodes the conceptthat law can be applied as written, whether by the legislature orjudges, and 'undermines the basic principle that language providesa meaningful constraint on public and private conduct,'" Ikutawrote.

With the majority's ruling, "it is clear that no future litigantcan rely on a protective order and will have to chart its coursethrough discovery cautiously and belligerently, to the detrimentof the legal system," Ikuta added.

In a 24-page complaint filed Jan. 8, lead plaintiffs Robert Nairn,Carol Van Horst, Barbara Ortwein and Piruz Khorvash claim the bankknew about the scam from the get-go but turned a blind eye to theobvious signs of fraud.

The men raked in $125 million from thousands of victims, who neverreceived an ATM. "Instead, the investor money was used to payother existing investors the guaranteed 20 percent return," thecomplaint states.

Both pleaded guilty last January to conspiracy, two counts of mailfraud and one count of wire fraud in what prosecutors called "oneof the largest Ponzi schemes ever seen in Southern California."Gillis was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in Novemberwhile Wishner got nine.

Now the victims are saying that City National Bank had a hand inperpetuating the scam and must be held accountable "for thedevastating harm it helped cause."

As the primary bank used by Gillis and Wishner to deposit investormoney and conduct wire transfers, City National "had before it thevery nuts and bolts of the Ponzi scheme and could not perform evencursory due diligence without bumping up against evidence of thefraud. Not only was defendant City National Bank instrumental inlulling investors into a false sense of security by helping toensure that virtually none of the fictitious profit checksbounced, but it also routinely served as a reference forNationwide Automated Systems in its recruitment of potentialinvestors," the complaint states.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks are required to establishprograms to detect signs of money laundering and other forms offraud, report any suspicious activity, and keep meticulous recordsfor tax and possibly criminal investigations.

Furthermore, ATM leasebacks and investments scams have beenrecognized as one of the most popular forms of Ponzi schemes sinceat least 2001. In 2005, the government required banks to establishprocedures to detect this type of fraud, according to thecomplaint.

Though City National started monitoring Nationwide Automated'saccount activity in 2005 and therefore knew it was issuing shamprofit checks and paying older investors with new investor funds,it refused to shut down the company's account or report itssuspicious activities, the plaintiffs say.

In fact, it was so "enmeshed" in the Ponzi scheme that bankrepresentatives spoke to several potential investors on NationwideAutomated's behalf, according to the complaint.

Attorney Steve Nunez told Courthouse News that City National justlearned about the complaint and has no comment at this time.The victim seek class certification, $125 million in compensatorydamages, and punitive damages for aiding and abetting fraud,aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abettingan endless chain scheme and violations of the state business andprofessions code.

Plaintiff worked as a maintenance professional for the Defendants'maintenance and cleaning business and claims to have regularlyworked 54 hours per week for 6 days per week from 10:00 p.m. to7:00 a.m. and was paid on a fixed salary basis of $800 bi-weeklyregardless of actual hours worked with no indication that thefixed salary was intended to cover any overtime hours worked inexcess of 40 hours per week and was not paid overtime premium. Healso allegedly did not receive any wage statements fromDefendants. The latter also paid Plaintiff regularly rates belowthe prevailing minimum wage in violation of the New York LaborLaws.

The Clean Doctors Of New York, Ltd. is a domestic businesscorporation organized under the laws of New York, with a principalplace of business located at 3442 Poplar Street, Oceanside, NewYork 11572 with Jason Nogin as owner and senior executive officer.

COOK COUNTY, IL: Taxpayer Sues Over Missing $400MM--------------------------------------------------Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Services, reportedthat Cook County can't account for $380 million to $638 million infees collected from litigants from 2001 to 2014, taxpayers claimin a lawsuit in Chicago demanding that the state's attorneyconduct an audit.

Harlan Berk and his company Harlan J. Berk Ltd. filed a federalcomplaint on Jan. 8 against Cook County and its state's attorney,Anita Alvarez. Berk is a numismatist: his company appraises, buysand sells ancient coins.

"Plaintiffs' claims arise from the discovery, confirmed bydefendants, that, from 2001 through 2014, more than $400 millionin public funds belonging to Cook County, Illinois pursuant toduly enacted legislation has been misapplied and continues to bemisapplied," the complaint begins.

The money was collected as court costs from litigants in CookCounty Court, but was not reported as receipts in reports issuedby the clerk of the court, according to the complaint.

Calculations concerning the five funds covered in the court'sannual reports "reveal a shortfall of between $380 million andnearly $638 million from 2001 through 2014," Berk says.

An additional $55 million to $90 million allegedly is missing fromreceipts for costs related to the Children's Waiting Room, DrugCourt, Mental Health Court, Peer Jury Program, and ElectronicCitations funds.

An Evanston doctor filed a class action in 2014 in state courtbased on the same claims, but an Illinois appeals court ruled thathe had no standing to challenge how the Cook County Clerkprocesses court fees.

Berk seeks to differentiate his suit by founding it on a dueprocess claim filed in Federal Court. He claims he has standingbecause taxpayers have been deprived of a significant amount oftax money without due process, money that should have gone tomaintain the court system.

"Plaintiffs, as taxpayers, have suffered a deprivation of theirproperty without due process of law because the only remedyavailable under state law to redress the loss of funds while underthe dominion of the Clerk of the Court is being deniedarbitrarily, at best, by the sitting State's Attorney, who, inobeisance to her client, will not take action to prevent orrecover money that the State's Attorney knows was paid into theClerk's office but was never reported in the financial reportsthat the Clerk is required by state law to provide and will nottake action to require the County to conduct the audits alsorequired by state law to protect the public fisc," the complaintstates.

Berk seeks a court order demanding that Cook County conduct auditsof the clerk's reports, and take appropriate action to recoup themissing -- or stolen -- money.

He is represented by Joseph Tighe with Alan J. Mandel Ltd. inSkokie.

DIAMOND RESORTS: Trial Set for April 29 in "Ferraro" Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------------Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported thata state court judge in San Diego, on Jan. 6 entertained argumentswhether a class action against a timeshare company that elderlyclients say swindled them into paying more for vacation rentalsthey had little access to should be dismissed.

Ferraro says she originally purchased a timeshare from PacificMonarch Resorts and paid $19,000.

Diamond later acquired Monarch and a sales representativecontacted Ferraro to come to a meeting to purchase additionalpoints to use toward her vacation rental. Ferraro went to a salespitch meeting in Palm Springs in 2013, where she was told if shedid not upgrade her timeshare eventually there would be few to noresorts for her to choose from.

Ferraro says she was also told during the sales pitch herquarterly maintenance fees would go down. But despite paying toupgrade her timeshare, Ferraro claims her timeshare has becomeworthless and the maintenance fees have actually increased monthlyto a level she can't afford to pay.

The other plaintiffs in the case claim to have experienced similarjumps in fees they paid on top of paying for additional points orupgrades to their timeshare packages.

Diamond Resorts argued that Ferraro and the other plaintiffs couldnot possibly participate in one trial because there were 19different timeshare transactions across 15 years and four states -- all sold to the plaintiffs by different salespeople.

Each plaintiff interacted with a salesperson, contract person andmanager who oversaw the transaction, with zero overlap inwitnesses identified by Ferraro and the other plaintiffs, Diamondargued, and asked Strauss to sever the suit for separate trials.

Keeping track of the different people involved and different statelaws could potentially confuse a jury, Diamond said.

"Imagine the jury's eyes glazing over as they try to understandlaws from different states and try to apply it," Diamond'sattorney Craig Marcus said. "An outright dismissal is theappropriate remedy."

Diamond said the plaintiffs claim a single scheme across threevacation rental sellers -- Sunterra Corporation, Monarch andDiamond -- took place. The company denied this, noting the sellerswere independent companies. Diamond later acquired the other twovacation rental companies from whom many of the plaintiffs hadoriginally purchased their vacation packages.

Ferraro argued while the purchases may have been facilitated bydifferent salespeople at different companies, the contractsentered into by the plaintiffs were the same and theirwhistleblowers could attest to the deliberate ways Diamondswindled the timeshare owners out of money.

"There is a scheme that exists within Diamond to defraud people,"Ferraro's attorney Veronica Aguilar said.

Strauss told the parties if later down the road there's a reasonto settle claims brought by individual plaintiffs, they woulddiscuss it when the time came.

DRAFTKINGS & FANDUEL: N.Y. A.G. Seeks Restitution of Funds----------------------------------------------------------Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Services, reportedthat, as a million people gathered to watch the ball descend atTimes Square, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman went tocourt in Manhattan to drop the other shoe on fantasy-sportcompanies FanDuel and DraftKings.

It has been nearly two months since Schneiderman's office sent ascathing cease-and-desist letter warning the companies to stopoperating in the state. Since that time, FanDuel and DraftKingshave faced dozens of class actions around the country, amidreports that insiders rig the game through sophisticatedalgorithms running confidential information.

Against the defense that the websites offer a game of skill,Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez granted Schneiderman'srequest for an injunction banning them in New York as illegalbetting operations. The decision has been stayed pending anappeal, but Schneiderman's office hasn't cashed out yet. On NewYear's Eve, the attorney general filed an amended complaintseeking the restitution of "all funds" the companies made throughtheir "fraudulent, deceptive, and illegal acts" in New York.

Schneiderman touted his office's recent victory in a statementannouncing its new action.

"This filing, which follows a preliminary determination by theState Supreme Court that DraftKings and FanDuel have been runningillegal sports betting operations, seeks appropriate fines andrestitution from the companies," he said. "It should be nosurprise that the amounts involved are substantial, given theskyrocketing size of these illegal gambling operations."

According to CBS News, the companies estimated that they made morethan $200 million from at least 600,000 customers in the EmpireState.

Though FanDuel suspended its operation in New York when the courtdenied it a restraining order in November, the website has beenback up since the stay of the court's injunction. A full appellatepanel must still decide whether the stay is necessary.

"As we have previously iterated, FanDuel remains committed tooffering our fantasy contests to the Yankees, Mets, Jets, Giants,Bills, Knicks, Nets, Rangers, Islanders and Sabres fans thatcomprise the great state of New York and love fantasy sports -- beit season-long or daily," the company said in a statement. "As oneof New York's fastest growing startup companies, we are thoroughlydisappointed in the attorney general's ongoing actions and willfight this meritless amended suit until fantasy sports aresafeguarded for all sports fans."

David Boies, an attorney for DraftKings at Boies, Schiller &Flexner, said the new complaint shows that Schneiderman "stilldoes not understand fantasy sports."

"Like the NYAG original complaint, it is based on the fundamentalmisunderstanding of fantasy sports competitions," Boies said in astatement.

Schneiderman's error stems from the assumption that fantasy sportsbank on "chance" rather than skill.

"Everyone who plays fantasy sports knows they are games of skill,"Boies wrote. "It is the opportunity to match your knowledge andskill against the knowledge and skill of your friends and otherfantasy enthusiasts that makes [DraftKings] contests so excitingand challenging."

With a trial court judge rejecting that argument, Boies believesthat the state's chance theory still has been "disproven" by thecompany's evidence.

In its Dec. 22 brief opposing the stay, the attorney general'soffice estimated in court paper that ban on the companies woulddeprive them of "only single-digit percentages" of theirnationwide business.

"Whatever 'skill' is involved in predicting athletic performanceis simply skill at gambling - not the type of skill that removesan activity from the realm of gambling altogether," Schneiderman'soffice said.

FanDuel is expected to file its appeal to New York's AppellateDivision, First Department.

EAST BAY: Faces "Smiler" Suit Over Water Delivery "Charges"-----------------------------------------------------------Eric Smiler, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, v. East Bay Municipal Utility District and DOES 1-100,inclusive, Case No. RG15794927 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda,November 30, 2015), alleges that the district's continuedimposition and collection of water delivery "charges" or "fees" isin violation of California law.

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), colloquially referredto as "East Bay Mud", provides water and sewage treatment servicesfor an area of approximately 331 square miles in the eastern sideof the San Francisco Bay.

Among those called out in the 105-page complaint for their allegedmalfeasance are seven drug companies based in Pennsylvania or NewJersey that the class claims simultaneously raised the averagewholesale price, or AWP, of a generic antibiotic from $20 to$1,849 a bottle in six months -- an 8,281 percent increase.

At about the same time, the class says, Endo International, SunPharmaceutical Industries and Par Pharmaceutical Companies teamedup with Teva Pharmaceutical and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories to pumpup the price of a migraine pill from $31 to $234, a 736 percentincrease.

A drug's AWP is part of a reimbursement formula third party payersuse, meaning any increase in AWP corresponds with an increase inwhat Plumber's Local 690 and other class members pay for thatdrug, the complaint, which was filed Dec. 31, says.

The plumbers' union cites three main sources of this pricinginformation in the complaint: Red Book, First Data Bank andMedispan. Drug companies report their drugs' AWPs to theseorganizations , which do not independently review the data thecompanies report, according to the complaint.

In cases like the antibiotic and migraine pills, the companiesworked together to report AWPs that "bore little relationship" tothe actual average wholesale price doctors and pharmacies buytheir drugs at, the class claims.

Instead of market forces bringing down the prices of the genericdrugs, the companies just set their AWP at 10 percent below thatof branded drugs, the complaint says.

"A system that bases its reimbursement rates for drugs on thepublished AWP is thus dependent on the honesty of drugmanufacturers, including the defendants," the complaint says."The defendants knew they could directly control and fabricate theAWP for their drugs at any time by forwarding to the publishers afalse AWP. The defendants also knew that actual transactionalprice data -- the amounts charged to medical providers and othersfor their drugs -- was not publically available, and they keptthis information (on which AWPs should have been calculated)highly confidential and secret."

The class claims the price increases affect all types of patients,from those on Medicare or Medicaid to those with union-providedprivate insurance plans to people without any insurance who haveto pay cash for the drugs they need.

While the exponential price increases pinch the groups that haveto reimburse the cost of prescription drugs or those who have tobuy them out-of-pocket, they help fill the coffers of drugcompanies and health care professionals who write prescriptions,the class claims.

Doctors buy drugs from wholesalers or manufacturers beforereselling them to patients, and a doctor who prescribes a certaindrug to a patient with some form of health insurance then billsthe plan using the listed AWP, according to the complaint.

In situations where the listed AWP is artificially high, thedoctor therefore pockets any difference between the price he orshe paid for the drug and the reimbursement amount, the classclaims in the 98-page complaint.

"These price increases by multiple defendants in the same amounts,for the same drugs, over the same narrow time period, representthe sort of parallel pricing actions that do not typically occurin a competitive market where commodity products, like genericprescription drugs, are sold," the plumbers claim in thecomplaint. "Instead, they are believed, and therefore averred tobe the product of coordination and/or concerted action on theparts of defendants."

The same can be said for pharmacies, which use the listed AWPs toset their drug prices, either through the amount they charge aprescription drug plan or how much people must pay outside of ahealth plan, according to the complaint.

"It's not the average, it's not the wholesale, it's not theprice," said Donald Haviland, a Pennsylvania attorney representingthe class about what his firm's investigation of the caserevealed.

Beyond this price fixing, the class also claims the companiesincentivized doctors and pharmacies to buy their drugs by ensuringthe difference between the AWP and the actual cost of the drug waslarge, therefore guaranteeing a large profit for the customersthrough a practice known as spread promotion, according to thecomplaint.

The companies also gave out free goods other incentives toconvince doctors and pharmacies to buy their drugs, according tothe complaint.

"The Defendants' failure to properly disclose their wrongfulconduct, especially the AWP inflation and spread promotion actsand practices alleged herein, was and is willful, intentional,wanton, malicious and outrageous," the class claims in thecomplaint.

In 2014, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent currentlymaking a bid for the White House as a Democrat, launched aninvestigation into the skyrocketing prices of generic drugs.

Sanders invited the CEOs of Lannett, Teva PharmaceuticalIndustries and Marathon Pharmaceuticals to testify at the hearingsbut none agreed to appear, the complaint sayd.

It claims these drug companies, many of which are based inPennsylvania or New Jersey, violated the Pennsylvania Unfair TradePractices and Consumer Protection Law and engaged in fraud andcivil conspiracy.

The class consists of "all purchasers in Pennsylvania of genericdrugs whose AWPs were inflated and who paid for all or a portionof those drugs based upon such inflated AWP as a pricingstandard," according to the complaint.

Haviland speculated the damages stemming from the case could runinto the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Endo International declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.

None of the other companies returned email or phone messagesrequesting comment on the suit.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and seven subsidiaries agreed on Dec. 17to pay the federal government and 26 state Medicaid programs,including Florida's, to settle a whistleblower suit filed bydentist Stephan Porter of West Palm Beach.

Dr. Porter discovered the deficiency in the Qualitest fluoridesupplements by conducting a chemical analysis of the vitaminswhile working for a competitor.

"The most important thing to Dr. Porter was to remove thedefective product from circulation, which this lawsuitaccomplished," said Dr. Porter's attorney, Ryon McCabe of McCabeRabin in West Palm Beach.

"Dr. Porter is pleased with the result but continues to beconcerned that children who received insufficient fluoride as aresult of this product will suffer unnecessary dental cavities andrelated problems in the future," he said.

Dr. Porter filed the qui tam case in the Southern District ofNew York in March 2013 under the False Claims Act, alleging Endocaused pharmacies to submit false claims to federal health careprograms.

The Pennsylvania-based company pulled the children's vitamins fivemonths later after the whistleblower lawsuit called the problem tothe attention of the U.S. government.

"Once the company knew they were under investigation for this,they pulled it off the shelf," Mr. McCabe said.

The federal government spent the next several months examiningcompany records and interviewing witnesses about the fluoridesupplements, which were prescribed to children who live incommunities without fluoridated drinking water to prevent toothdecay.

The investigation determined children who took Qualitest once aday received only about 44 percent of the daily fluoride intakerecommended by the American Dental Association and the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics.

Endo accepted responsibility for that finding as part of thesettlement agreement. The company also admitted it knew Medicaidwas paying claims for the Qualitest vitamins.

Dr. Porter will receive $4.7 million of settlement money from thefederal government, $2.8 million from the states plus 21 percentof the accrued interest for his role as a whistleblower.

The next step is to recover funds for any consumers who paid forthe Qualitest vitamins out of pocket rather than through Medicaid.McCabe filed a separate consumer class action against Endo in theSouthern District of New York to pursue those claims.

Although he will not be a member of the class, Mr. McCabe said theissue is "near and dear" to him.

"My own kids took this," he said of the Qualitest vitamins soldfrom 2007 to 2013.

Mr. McCabe said the whistleblower case was satisfying to work onbecause of the consumer impact.

"There was real harm being done to parents and children anddoctors," he said. Mr. McCabe pursued the case with AssistantU.S. Attorney Li Yu of the Southern District of New York andJay Speers, counsel to the National Association of Medicaid FraudControl Units.

Endo was represented by Jonathan Stern --Jonathan.Stern@aporter.com -- and David Fauvre --David.Fauvre@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter in Washington. Acompany spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment bydeadline.

"The jury worked very hard on the case throughout," he said. "Ihope this sends a message to Johnson & Johnson that they need toexercise care in the development and marketing of their products."A spokesman for Ethicon said the company plans to appeal theverdict.

"We believe the evidence showed Ethicon's Prolift pelvic organprolapse repair kit was properly designed, Ethicon actedappropriately and responsibly in the research, development andmarketing of the product, and Prolift was not the cause of theplaintiff's continuing medical problems. We have always madepatient safety a top priority and will continue to do so,"spokesman Matthew Johnson said in an emailed statement. "Studiesdemonstrated that Prolift was efficacious and had a low rate ofpost-operative complications when used with appropriate patientselection and proper surgical technique."

The Hammons case was the first out of Philadelphia's pelvic-meshmass tort program to hit trial. Judge Mark I. Bernstein presidedover the case.

According to Stanley Thompson, director of the Complex LitigationCenter, there are 181 pending cases in the pelvic-mesh mass tort,with the last case being filed in October.

In 2009, the Prolift device had been implanted into Hammons, anIndiana resident who worked as a stocker for Wal-Mart, to addressa prolapsed bladder.

Her counsel had argued, among other things, that the density ofthe mesh caused scar tissue to build up and contract, whicheventually led to erosion of Hammons' bladder and "excruciating"pain during sex.

After the device failed, she had to have numerous surgeries, butwill not be able to completely remove portions of the mesh thateventually adhered to the bladder, according to Specter.

During the compensatory phase, Ethicon's attorney, Susan M.Robinson of Thomas Combs & Spann, said development of the devicewas led by doctors, not Ethicon, and the risks of using pelvicmesh were well known throughout the medical community.

According to Robinson, despite the later complications, the meshworked and properly supported Hammons' bladder.

Ms. Robinson also noted that, along with Ms. Hammons' bladder, heruterus was also prolapsed, and, after she underwent a hysterectomyin 2009, her small bowel also began to prolapse into her vaginalcanal. She argued that this can also lead to pain during sex.

After the jury of seven women and five men awarded Ms. Hammons$5.5 million in compensatory damages on Dec. 21, the case wentdirectly into the punitive damages phase. The jury had votedduring its deliberations in the compensatory phase that the caseshould also include the consideration of punitive damages.

Mr. Specter kept his opening statement in the punitive phase toJ&J's net worth, which is more than $69.7 billion.

J&J then called accountant Mark Schneider to testify about thefinances of Ethicon and J&J. Among other things, Schneider saidthat Ethicon made only $4.2 million from selling the Proliftproduct between 2005 and 2012, when the device was taken off themarket.

On cross-examination, Specter questioned the claimed amount ofprofits from the device, and told jurors that the company had atleast $44.1 billion in liquid assets that could easily beconverted to cash.

During his subsequent closing argument in the punitive phase,Specter told jurors the company needed to be sent a message thatits conduct after learning of the safety risks of the product waswrong.

According to Specter, the company had been told the device hadproblems before and after it went to market, but the product wassold for another seven years. He said the company knew the meshwas causing pain during sex in about 20 percent of the women usingthe device.

"That same 20 percent number, they knew it from the beginning. . .. It was all designed simply to sell as many of these things asthey could," Mr. Specter said. "You have to be heard from."

In his closing argument during the punitive phase, Tarek Ismail ofGoldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum, who also representedEthicon, told the jurors that, even less than 90 minutes after theinitial verdict came down, top company officials had already heardtheir message.

He also noted that the headquarters for J&J is close toPhiladelphia.

"It stings to be told by members of our community that we didn'tmeet their expectations," he said.

Mr. Ismail additionally noted that the Prolift product has beenoff the market since 2012, and said the company actedappropriately in the wake of learning of the risks of the product.

"That corrective action has already been taken," Mr. Ismail said."That decision was made over three years ago."

ETHICON INC: Bets on Pelvic Mesh Trials---------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat after four years of litigation, most of the manufacturers ofpelvic mesh devices have begun to settle thousands of cases in aneffort to shrink the largest mass tort in the country.

All, that is, except for Johnson & Johnson.

Unlike other defendants, Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon Inc. for themost part has resisted efforts to settle litigation over thedevices, taking its chances in court. And so far, the record isn'tgreat: Ethicon has lost five of seven bellwether trials in thepast two years. At least six more trials are coming up this yearagainst Ethicon -- by far more than any other pelvic meshdefendant. The first two are in Philadelphia on Jan. 25 and Feb.22.

Lawyers involved in mesh litigation are monitoring the outcomes ofthose -- trials to assess whether Ethicon, which has more lawsuitsthan any other defendant, could be convinced to start settling itscases.

Most of the trials are in state courts. But U.S. District JudgeJoseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia, who hasbeen pressuring all the defendants to settle the federal lawsuitsover pelvic mesh devices, has scheduled the first consolidatedtrial against Ethicon. That trial, set for April 11, involves 37cases against the company.

"Ethicon is and has been probably the most stalwart in terms oftheir public statements that they intend to defend these cases,"said Fred Thompson, Esq. -- fthompson@motleyrice.com -- of MotleyRice, co-lead plaintiffs counsel in the federal pelvic meshlitigation before Goodwin. "What you see with Judge Goodwin ishe's raising the temperature of the water on everybody to seewhether the frog will jump out before we all boil to death."Pelvic mesh devices are implanted in women to treat urinaryincontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Many women have sued,alleging that the devices eroded inside their bodies, leading topain during sex, and subsequent surgeries.

Ethicon isn't the only mesh manufacturer that has gone to trial. Alawsuit filed against both C.R. Bard Inc. and Boston ScientificCorp. went to trial last month in Missouri's 16th Judicial CircuitCourt in Jackson County. Bard, which lost the first pelvic meshverdict in 2012 when a jury in California state court awarded $5.5million, also goes to trial on Feb. 22 in Florida's Volusia CountyCircuit Court.

Boston Scientific has lost some of the largest verdicts to comeout of the pelvic mesh litigation: $18.5 million and $26.7 millionin separate consolidated trials in 2014, plus a $73.4 millionverdict, followed by a $100 million award last year.

But Goodwin has been forcing the defendants to the settlementtable, and many of the other mesh manufacturers, including Bardand Boston Scientific, have reached out to prominent plaintiffslaw firms to resolve chunks of their cases. "They've shown thejudge enough progress that he's not putting immediate trialpressure on any of those folks," Thompson said.

Ethicon has been a different story. In addition to settingbellwether trial dates, Goodwin has scheduled tight discoverydeadlines to move hundreds more Ethicon cases through the courts."He's in essence ratcheting up the pressure on both sides toeither settle these cases or prepare them for trial," Thompsonsaid.

Of the 70,000 pelvic mesh lawsuits pending across the country,Ethicon has the most on its plate, with more than 23,000 lawsuitspending against it in federal court alone. But the company,represented by Butler Snow and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &Flom, has taken a more aggressive approach than its counterparts,at one point accusing plaintiffs attorneys of drumming up"baseless lawsuits" through advertisements and cold calls.

"It's their business model," said Sheila Bossier, Esq. --sbossier@freeseandgoss.com -- a partner in the Jackson,Mississippi, office of Freese & Goss. "They've chosen to litigateand try to get the settlement dollars down."

Spokesman Matthew Johnson wrote in an email that Johnson & Johnsonand Ethicon were "continuing to vigorously defend ourselves inongoing litigation. We empathize with all women suffering frompelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, conditionsthat can be serious and debilitating, and we are always concernedwhen a patient experiences adverse medical events. The use ofimplantable mesh is often the preferred option to treat certainfemale pelvic conditions, including pelvic organ prolapse andstress urinary incontinence, and is backed by years of clinicalresearch."

The first two trials against Ethicon are in Philadelphia Court ofCommon Pleas, where a jury awarded $12.5 million, including $7million in punitive damages on Dec. 22. One involves a woman whohad an Ethicon device implanted in her in 2005 but underwent twomore surgeries to remove it. The other involves a woman who hadmultiple surgeries over the device in 2008. Unlike most of thebellwethers, the consolidated trial before Goodwin in WestVirginia will focus solely on claims for design defect -- the"core of the dispute," Thompson said. Another individual casebefore Goodwin is scheduled for a June 6 trial.

Whether Ethicon evens out its scorecard of verdicts remains to beseen. After Freese & Goss won a $5.7 million verdict on March 5,Ethicon came back with a defense verdict on Oct. 5 againstBossier's firm. Then, in November, Ethicon convinced a Texasappeals court to reverse a $1.2 million verdict the firm won in2014.

Freese & Goss has two more trials scheduled this year againstEthicon in Texas state courts, the first on April 25. Bossier saidshe's optimistic that the momentum could swing against Ethicon,especially after the FDA announced this month that it hadtightened restrictions on transvaginal mesh devices.

"It does seem like the momentum is heading that way, and I thinkthat's everybody's hope -- that we won't go through another yearand continue this game of badminton," she said.

FACEBOOK INC: Court Allows Investors' IPO Suit to Proceed---------------------------------------------------------Gina Passarella, writing for Law.com, reports that the DelawareCourt of Chancery has allowed to proceed a dispute between twogroups of investors who pooled their resources for the solepurpose of buying Facebook shares before the social mediacompany's IPO, but who ended up with two very different results.

Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster largely denied a motion todismiss the breach of contract action in ESG Capital Partners IIv. Passport Special Opportunities Master Fund, allowing the"disfavored" partners, as the court called them, to sue those"favored" investors who were paid out more on their investments.

The dispute stems from the financial malfeasance by the man whoformed ESG Capital Partners II, Timothy Burns, who, according tothe opinion, was convicted for his role in diverting thepartnership's cash and shares.

Burns formed ESG and solicited investors for the sole purpose ofbuying Facebook shares in advance of the company's May 2012initial public offering. The partnership agreement divided theequity stake into units and investors became limited partners bypurchasing units. The investors were then to be paid outrespective to their percentage interest as defined by the numberof units they purchased divided by the total number of unitsoutstanding, Vice Chancellor Laster said.

In March 2012, ESG paid about $14 million to buy 452,515 Facebookshares. One of the defendants, Passport Special OpportunitiesMaster Fund, had paid ESG $3.3 million for 100,000 units, ViceChancellor Laster said. After the IPO, Vice Chancellor Lastersaid, Burns diverted cash and shares. Before it was detected, hetransferred 376,465 shares to the investors, but gave the"favored" investors one Facebook share for every unit they held,while the "disfavored" investors received less than one share perunit, or, in some instances, no shares at all.

That wrongdoing came to light in December 2012 when some of theinvestors uncovered what Burns had done. They demanded he and ESGwithdraw or resign. Ultimately, the partnership elected ESGSuccessor II, an entity unaffiliated with Burns, as the newgeneral partner. In March 2015, ESG Successor sent letters to thefavored partners demanding that they return their shares or paythe partnership the current market value of the shares. Theletter stated ESG Successor would then redistribute the shares orcash to all partners based on their percentage interests. Thefavored partners did not return their shares or pay anything tothe partnership, Vice Chancellor Laster said.

On May 20, the disfavored partners, ESG Successor and thepartnership sued the favored partners and Passport Capital, theinvestment manager for favored partner Passport SpecialOpportunities Master Fund. Burns is not a party to this suit. Thesuit claims a breach of the partnership agreement, conversion,unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment that the transfersviolated the agreement and attorney fees and costs under thepartnership agreement's loser-pays provision.

Vice Chancellor Laster threw out the declaratory judgment count asduplicative of the breach of contract claim. He also dismissedPassport Capital given it did not receive any preferentialtransfer. Vice Chancellor Laster allowed all of the others claimsto proceed.

"The complaint adequately pleads that the distribution provisionswere breached and that the disfavored [limited partners] sufferedharm," Vice Chancellor Laster said. "Contrary to the terms of thepartnership agreement, the favored [limited partners] receivedpreferential transfers at the expense of the disfavored [limitedpartners]."

Vice Chancellor Laster called the favored partners' defense to thebreach of contract claim "frivolous." The favored investors hadargued that they each received payouts equal to the number ofunits they held and, therefore, no breach of contract could haveoccurred.

Vice Chancellor Laster said the favored partners wrongly arguethey had an ownership interest in the Facebook shares. ViceChancellor Laster said those shares were the partnership'sproperty and the investors had an interest in the partnership. Inthis case, it was a percentage interest, not a per-unit interest.

"In this case, Burns' defalcations reduced the number of Facebookshares below a one-for-one correspondence with the number ofunits," Vice Chancellor Laster said, noting later, "When thefavored [limited partners] received one Facebook share for eachunit they held, they received more than what their percentageinterest in a distribution would have generated."

Vice Chancellor Laster said the defendants raised similararguments in trying to defeat the plaintiffs' claims forconversion and unjust enrichment. He similarly rejected thosedefenses in denying their motion to dismiss.

Attorneys at Ashby & Geddes in Wilmington and Kaye Scholer in NewYork represented the plaintiffs.

"Vice Chancellor Laster's careful and well-reasoned decision pavesthe way for ESG to vindicate the rights of the limited partnerswho have yet to receive a distribution and have suffered twosubstantial blows in connection with their investment -- first atthe hand of Mr. Burns, the former general partner in ESG; and,thereafter, at the hands of Passport and the other defendants whohave failed to return their Facebook shares for distribution toall limited partners in accordance with the provisions of thelimited partnership agreement," Kaye Scholer partners MadlynPrimoff -- madlyn.primoff@kayescholer.com -- and Benjamin Mintzsaid in a statement.

Lawyers from Duane Morris in Wilmington and New York representeddefendant Pearl Capital Partners. Richard Riley --RWRiley@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris did not return a callseeking comment.

Attorneys at Bailey & Glasser in Wilmington and the Law Office ofJames M. Wines in Alexandria, Virginia, represented defendantsPhelim Dolan and Lauren Zalaznick. David A. Felice of Bailey &Glasser declined to comment, noting his clients' small role in thematter.

Joanna J. Cline -- clinej@pepperlaw.com -- and James H.S. Levineof Pepper Hamilton in Wilmington represented the other individualdefendants along with Brazos Global Investors. Ms. Cline was notavailable for comment.

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Judge Certifies Class in Title Insurance Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports thatan Allegheny County judge has certified a class of plaintiffs whoallege their title insurance companies engaged in a scheme inwhich they failed to charge discounted rates as required by astate-approved manual.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Senior Judge R. StantonWettick Jr. rejected arguments by the insurance companies that theplaintiffs must show justifiable reliance, and that it would betoo difficult to obtain the necessary records for all 800,000class members.

"Plaintiffs' pursuit of this theory supports a class actionbecause the questions of law and fact with respect to litigatingplaintiffs' theory are common to each member of the class," JudgeWettick wrote. "I do not find merit to the title insurancecompanies' contention that plaintiffs can only recover by showingthat the defendants' title agents engaged in deceptive conduct."

The plaintiffs in Patterson v. FidelityNational Title Insuranceand DeCooman v. Lawyers TitleInsurance allege that FidelityNational Title Insurance Co. and Fidelity National Insurance Co.of New York, as well as Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., failed tocharge discounted rates for title insurance as required bySections 5.3 and 5.6 of the Title Insurance Rating Bureau ofPennsylvania Manual.

Judge Wettick said he would agree with the defendants if recoveryrequires proof that the agents engaged in deceptive conduct. Butthe plaintiffs do not seek recovery from the agents, he said, asthey sued the title insurance companies based on the companies'conduct.

According to the opinion, the plaintiffs acknowledged that theinsurance companies charging the basic rate instead of the reissueor refinance rate does not necessarily establish fraud ordeception by itself.

"Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that evidence will supporta finding that the title insurance companies knowinglyparticipated in a scheme under which they would receive the fullbasic rates when reissue rates should have been charged," JudgeWettick wrote. "The title insurance companies knew or should haveknown that there was no uniformity as to when the title agentscharged the reissue rate."

The record showed that certain agents would only provide adiscounted rate if a broker instructed them to do so, the opinionsaid, but the title insurance companies did not provide guidanceto their agents on rates. However, Judge Wettick noted that themerits of the plaintiffs' argument were not before him.

Judge Wettick relied primarily on his June 2013 opinion in Toth v.Northwest Savings Bank. In that case, the plaintiff alleged thatthe bank maximized overdraft fees by waiting until the end of theday to determine if the customer's funds were sufficient to covertransactions, and by reordering the transactions so they werelisted from greatest to least, allowing for more instances ofoverdrafting and more charges. Judge Wettick rejected NorthwestSavings Bank's contention that proof of actual losses fromfraudulent or deceptive conduct was insufficient.

"A requirement to show individual, justifiable reliance, ifapplied to the present case, would mean that plaintiffs and theother purported class members may not recover without showing thatthey would not have proceeded with the closing if they had learnedthat they were being overcharged," Judge Wettick wrote.

According to the opinion, Fidelity and Lawyers Title argued theplaintiffs must allege justifiable reliance. They pointed toseveral Pennsylvania cases in which testimony establishingreliance was needed to show that the plaintiffs actually sufferedan ascertainable loss as a result of fraudulent or deceptiveconduct. But in the instant case, Judge Wettick said, theplaintiffs' ascertainable losses are the overcharges imposedbecause of the defendants' scheme, so a finding of reliance is notneeded.

Judge Wettick acknowledged that no Pennsylvania appellate courthas discussed whether testimony on reliance is required whenascertainable loss can be established without it. He alsoacknowledged that he considered several cases upon which thedefendants relied that were decided after Toth.

"However, there is no reason why case law would require suchtestimony where an ascertainable loss has been established," JudgeWettick said.

According to the opinion, the defendants also argued that a classaction would not provide a fair and efficient method because ofthe size of the class and difficulties involved, as title agentswould have to review every transaction. The defendants said filesare kept by 1,200 title agents, so based on an eight-hour work dayit would take a single person 64 years to review the 800,000closing files of the class members.

Judge Wettick did not accept this argument. He said there is noexplanation as to why the records of title insurance companies"were kept in a manner such that retrieval is so burdensome."Because the insurance companies created the recordkeeping method,he said, those methods should not be grounds for denying classcertification.

In addition, Judge Wettick said that if a common source ofliability is identified, varying amounts of damages is not areason to defeat a class certification.

Pittsburgh attorney Adrian N. Roe is representing the plaintiffs."We were pleased with the court's ruling and look forward to thetrial," Mr. Roe said.

Plaintiffs were employed by First Student as bus drivers anddriver assistants, in the intrastate transportation of students tolocal municipal schools and providing students intrastatetransportation to extracurricular activities.

The Defendants allegedly do not compensate the Plaintiffs forprep-time period prior to actual bus trip as well as the postinspection activities they conduct after the buses are parked.

First Student Management LLC is a corporation located at 1812South 12th Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania and is a subsidiary ofFirst Student Inc., a foreign corporation located at 705 CentralAvenue, Cincinnati, Ohio. Defendants operate out of approximately37 separate bus yards in the state of Pennsylvania.

Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc. and Franklin Baking Co., LLC, andtheir subsidiaries and affiliates are in the wholesale bakerybusiness and rely on Distributors to deliver to and stock bakedgoods to grocery stores, mass retailers, and fast food chains.'

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as washers, folders andcustomer service attendants. They claim to be paid sub-minimumwage rates and also have rendered in excess of 40 hours per weekwhich was allegedly not compensated as overtime premium.

GENERAL MOTORS: 'Bellwether' Trial to Provide Litigation Template-----------------------------------------------------------------Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports thatthere will be a lot on the line for General Motors when lawyersfor plaintiff Robert Scheuer try to prove the car crash that senthim to surgery was caused by a defective ignition switch thatprevented air bags from deploying.

Southern District Judge Jesse Furman will preside over juryselection in the Scheuer case, the first of six bellwether trialsin which plaintiffs lawyers are attempting to prove the automobilegiant was late to recall cars with defective switches and engagedin a massive cover-up to avoid liability.

Scheuer suffered serious back injuries on May 28, 2014, when his2003 Saturn Ion was struck by another car in Bristow, Oklahoma,forced off the road and into some trees.

Scheuer and some 1,600 other claimants allege the problem was adefect that caused the ignition switch to go from the "run" to the"accessory" or "off" position, causing their vehicles to losepower, speed control and braking, and, in Scheuer's case andothers, prevent air bags from deploying.

GM had sent out recall notices warning that multiple keys or otheritems on a key ring might cause the ignition to switch positions.Scheuer said he received two of those notices and followedinstructions to remove all items from his key ring, save hisignition key for the Saturn.

GM, represented by Kirkland & Ellis partners Richard Godfrey, Esq.-- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- and Andrew Bloomer, Esq. --andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- is confident it can defeat effortsof each of the six plaintiffs to prove the ignition switchrotated, that the timing of the rotation prevented the airbag fromdeploying and that their injuries were caused by the failure ofthe airbags to deploy.

"In the Scheuer case, GM will show the ignition switch did notrotate and the airbags were not designed to deploy in thisaccident," GM spokesman James Cain said in a statement.

In papers filed with the court, Godfrey and Bloomer state that"The unrebutted scientific evidence shows that a Saturn Ionoperated with only an ignition key is substantially lesssusceptible to inadvertent rotation, and cannot inertially rotateat all, than an ignition switch with a key having multiple itemsattached to its ring."

They also objected pretrial to the fact that Scheuer's car has notbeen preserved and asked for sanctions, but Furman said the casecould go forward.

GM is accused of knowing about the faulty switches for yearsbefore it belatedly issued a recall notice in February 2014.Thirty million recalls were issued amid a storm of outrage and acongressional inquiry.

The company, sometimes referred to as "New GM" in court papersfollowing its emergence from bankruptcy, paid $900 million as partof a deferred prosecution agreement with the Southern DistrictU.S. Attorney's Office. The company has also paid out close to$600 million of a fund it established to compensate claimants.Scheuer's claim on the fund, however, was denied by the company.

Furman has been riding herd on the multi-district case, In reGeneral Motors Ignition Switch Litigation, 14-MD-2543. Some 1,385of the cases have settled for roughly $275 million and about 339remain. A total of 217 are wrongful death and personal injurysuits, with the remainder seeking damages claiming the recallreduced the resale value of their cars.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Robert Hilliard, Esq. --bobh@hmglawfirm.com -- of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in CorpusChristi, accompanied by attorneys with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiroin Seattle, Washington and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein inSan Francisco, California, also reached a $300 million classaction settlement on behalf of General Motors shareholders whosaid the bad publicity over the recalls hurt their stock.

The plaintiffs attorneys, in their third amended consolidatedcomplaint filed in December, condemned "New GM's unprecedentedabrogation of basic standards of safety, truthfulness, andaccountability to the detriment of tens of millions of consumersand the public at large."

Setting a Template

The six bellwether cases are designed to set the template forsettlement on the remaining cases. The second trial, set to beginin March, is the only one of the six involving a death. Scheuer ismaking four claims for damages against General Motors, all underOklahoma law, for Oklahoma Manufacturer's Product Liability,fraud, and negligence as well as a claim for violation of theOklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

Following the recalls, General Motors retained Anton Valukas,chairman of Jenner & Block, who issued a report on the ignitionswitches -- excerpts of which are expected to be a key part of theScheuer and plaintiff trials, the last of which is due to start inNovember.

The case will also feature dueling expert testimony, a May 16,2014 consent order the company signed with the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration and the company's deferredprosecution agreement in the Southern District. The last twodocuments will be presented to the jury with redactions. The trialis expected to last four to five weeks.

Furman has been shaping the parameters of the case in a flurry ofpretrial opinions, including a decision in late December in whichhe ruled that Hilliard had presented at least a prima facie casefor the admission of 15 Other Similar Incidents (OSIs) of allegedignition switch failure (NYLJ, Dec. 30).

But Furman also deferred ruling on the actual admissibility of the15 OSIs, and he expressed doubt about whether some witnesses wouldbe allowed to testify, and concern over allowing "potentiallyinflammatory and emotionally charged testimony."

On Dec. 29, Furman ruled on the absence of Scheuer's car. GeneralMotors had moved for sanctions against Scheuer based on spoliationof the evidence.

But Furman denied the motion and said "New GM is precluded fromintroducing evidence or argument suggesting plaintiff destroyedhis car (or allowed it to be destroyed) or that the car, ifpreserved, would have yielded favorable evidence to New GM."

On Jan. 4, the judge circulated a proposed jury questionnaire thatasks what make of vehicle prospective jurors drive, whether theydrive a GM car, and whether they or their family own GM stock,including at the time GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009.

The questions also include whether prospective jurors have everbeen in an accident, whether air bags were deployed and whether,and how badly, they were injured. The jury pool received thequestionnaire.

GENERAL MOTORS: April 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set--------------------------------------------------------The following statement is being issued by Bernstein LitowitzBerger & Grossmann LLP regarding the New York State Teachers'Retirement System v. General Motors, et al. securities classaction.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANSOUTHERN DIVISION

NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and onBehalf of All Others Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquiredthe common stock of General Motors Company ("GM") fromNovember 17, 2010 through July 24, 2014, inclusive (the"Settlement Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the"Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THESETTLMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTIONLAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE INTHE SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Michigan, that the parties inthe above-captioned litigation (the "Action") have reached aproposed settlement for $300,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"),that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Action has been certified forsettlement purposes only as a class action on behalf of theSettlement Class. Certain persons and entities are, however,excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth inthe full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II)Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award ofAttorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the"Notice"), which more completely describes the Settlement and yourrights thereunder. If you have not yet received the Notice andClaim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contactingthe Claims Administrator at New York State Teachers' RetirementSystem v. General Motors Company, c/o Garden City Group, LLC, P.O.Box 10262, Dublin, OH 43017-5762, 1-866-459-1720. Copies of theNotice and Claim Form can also be downloaded fromwww.GMSecuritiesLitigation.com

A hearing will be held on April 20, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., before theHonorable Linda V. Parker at the United States District Court forthe Eastern District of Michigan, Federal Building and U.S.Courthouse, Courtroom 108, 600 Church Street, Flint, MI 48502, todetermine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approvedas fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action shouldbe dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releasesset forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement datedNovember 11, 2015 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii)whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fairand reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for anaward of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should beapproved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to beeligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, youmust submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than April 27, 2016.If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a properClaim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distributionof the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will neverthelessbe bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in theAction.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to excludeyourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request forexclusion such that it is received no later than March 23, 2016,in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Ifyou properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you willnot be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court inthe Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceedsof the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan ofAllocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees andreimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court anddelivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that theyare received no later than March 23, 2016, in accordance with theinstructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, GM, or itscounsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in theSettlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or LeadCounsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

New York State Teachers' Retirement System v. General MotorsCompanyc/o Garden City Group, LLCP.O. Box 10262Dublin, OH 43017-5762(866) 459-1720www.GMSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,should be made to Lead Counsel:

GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Trial in N.Y. Begins----------------------------------------------------Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that acivil trial was set to start this month in New York City will testthe legal boundaries of hundreds of claims remaining againstGeneral Motors Co. stemming from faulty ignition switches.

The case involves an Oklahoma man who blames a defective ignitionswitch for preventing his air bags from deploying during a crash.It's the first trial to result from hundreds of lawsuits filedagainst GM after the auto giant revealed in 2014 that faultyignition switches in Chevy Cobalts and other small carsnecessitated an unprecedented recall. The switches can slip outof the "on" position, causing the cars to stall, knocking outpower steering and turning off air bags.

GM knew about the faulty switches for more than a decade but didnot recall them until February 2014. The company paid nearly $600million to settle 399 claims made to a fund it established. Thoseclaims covered 124 deaths and 275 injuries, though GM's fundrejected more than 90 percent of the 4,343 claims it received,according to figures the company released in December.

In recent weeks, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman, thepresiding judge, has made rulings that may prevent the automakerfrom taking the easy road toward settling or forcing dismissal ofscores of lawsuits.

The judge has refused the company's request to exclude evidenceand arguments related to punitive damages, saying GM's delay inrecalling admittedly defective vehicles was "arguably dangerousconduct as it involved a hidden defect that caused a risk ofserious injury or death."

The judge also ruled that the "New GM," as it is repeatedlyreferred to in court papers, cannot dismiss the claims ofRobert S. Scheuer -- the plaintiff in the trial set to startJan. 11 -- merely because he failed to keep his 2003 Saturn Ionafter his front air bags failed to deploy when he was forced offan Oklahoma highway by another car and smashed head-on into twotrees in Bristow.

Mr. Scheuer, of Tulsa, was injured in the May 28, 2014, crash andretained lawyer Bob Hilliard, co-lead counsel for hundreds offederal cases consolidated in New York City.

"For years and years, GM -- including to some of my clients --would say: 'Look, this accident is your fault. Take $75,000 eventhough your family is dead,'" he said in a telephone interviewfrom his Texas office.

Mr. Hilliard said the litigants watching the case closely include"many traumatized folks who got pushed around by GM while thecover-up was active."

General Motors has told U.S. regulators in a recent quarterlyreport that it still faces 217 wrongful death and injury lawsuitsin the U.S. and Canada, along with 122 lawsuits alleging that therecalls reduced values of owners' cars.

GM spokesman Jim Cain said the Scheuer trial, likely to last abouta month, is the first of six bellwether trials that will occurover the next year. He said the outcome of the Scheuer trialwould "help form the basis for settlement of similar claims."

"It's our belief that the air bags weren't designed to deploy inthe accident that he had," Mr. Cain said.

In September, GM announced it had reached a $575 million deal withHilliard to settle 1,385 death and injury cases and to resolve a2014 class-action lawsuit filed by shareholders claiming GM'sactions reduced the value of their stock.

The announcement came as the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattanrevealed GM had settled a criminal investigation, agreeing to pay$900 million to the government to avoid prosecution on wire fraudcharges.

The company has initiated companywide safety reforms and in 2014issued a record 84 recalls covering more than 30 million vehicles,including 27 million in the U.S.

* * *

Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports thatevidence of similar incidents involving ignition defects and airbag deployment failures in General Motors vehicles may beintroduced at the company's trial in January, a federal judge hasruled.

Southern District Judge Jesse Furman said the plaintiff, in thefirst bellwether product liability trial on alleged ignitiondefects that cause vehicles to lose power, "established a primaface case for admission of at least some OSI" or "other similarincident" evidence.

However, Furman cautioned that, during pre-trial, he wouldseriously vet evidence of 15 OSIs being offered by lawyers forplaintiff Robert Scheuer.

The trial is set to begin Jan. 11.

Judge Furman's ruling on Dec. 28 came in In re General Motors LLCIgnition Switch Litigation, 14-MD-2543, multi-district litigationbeing pursued by hundreds of plaintiffs against General Motors.Seeking more details from the plaintiff, the judge deferred rulingon specific evidence of 15 other similar incidents thatMr. Scheuer, who was injured when his 2003 Saturn Ion crashed inOklahoma in 2014, wants to introduce at the trial.

But Judge Furman held that, "as a general matter" the "15 otherincidents at issue are 'substantially similar' to be admitted,certainly to prove notice, but also to prove causation."

The judge said a significant factor on admissibility in theproduct liability context is whether the OSIs being offered, theearliest of which go back to 2003, involve the same defect.

"The 15 incidents identified by plaintiff all involved the sameallegedly defective ignition switch as the one at issue here; allinvolved airbag non-deployment despite substantial frontal-impactcollisions, as here; and nearly all involved off-road conditions,as here," he said.

Judge Furman said the company, now calling itself New GM afterbankruptcy, "itself effectively treated the incidents assubstantially similar" until it was faced with having themadmitted at trial.

"Nearly all of the 15 other incidents were included in New GM'svarious admissions to crashes caused by the ignitions switchdefect-including submissions made to the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, the statement of facts to which New GMagreed as part of the deferred prosecution agreement with theDepartment of Justice, and the Valukas Report," he said, referringto the report prepared on the ignition scandal by Jenner & Blockchairman Anton Valukas.

General Motors hired Jenner & Block to investigate the defect anddelays in recalling the vehicles after New GM announced the firstrecall over faulty switches in 2014.

General Motors has since paid some $275 million to settleapproximately 1,300 of the cases, according to an attorney forScheuer; more than 300 cases remain before Judge Furman. TheScheuer trial is the first of six bellwether cases scheduledbefore the judge.

Judge Furman noted that New GM raised no objections over theconsolidation of the cases, all of which allege a defect makes avehicle's ignition switch go from "run" to the "accessory" or"off" position, causing the vehicle to lose power, speed controland braking, and preventing the air bags from deploying.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Can't Enforce $35MM Flonase Settlement Agreement-----------------------------------------------------------------Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports thatGlaxoSmithKline cannot enforce a $35 million settlement agreementin the Flonase antitrust litigation on the state of Louisiana eventhough the state's claims against GSK fall within the settlement'sterms.

U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District ofPennsylvania said she had no jurisdiction over GSK's motion toenforce the settlement on the state because Louisiana did notwaive its 11th Amendment sovereign immunity from being sued infederal court.

Judge Brody's ruling hinged on the notice Louisiana received ofthe $35 million settlement that received final approval in June2013. Specifically, Judge Brody had to determine whethernotifications of settlements to states under the Class ActionFairness Act of 2005 constituted sufficient notice to allow thestate to opt out of the settlement.

GSK settled claims raised by indirect purchasers of Flonase thatthe drugmaker delayed introduction of cheaper, generic versions ofthe drug by allegedly filing sham citizen petitions with the U.S.Food and Drug Administration. In December 2014, more than a yearafter the settlement, Louisiana's attorney general raised similarclaims against GSK in a Louisiana state-court action. While thatcase is pending, GSK asked Judge Brody to enforce the settlementon Louisiana and the state filed a motion to dismiss onjurisdictional grounds.

GSK argued Louisiana failed to opt out of the settlement despitebeing notified of it, and therefore is bound by its terms.Louisiana, on the other hand, argued that binding states to asettlement as absent class members violates their sovereignimmunity. It alternatively argued that it wasn't properlynotified of the class settlement. Judge Brody agreed withLouisiana's second argument, not reaching the question of whetherbinding states as absent class members violates their 11thAmendment rights.

Under CAFA, defendants must inform state officials of anysettlement that impacts citizens of their states. GSK informedLouisiana of the Flonase settlement through a CAFA notice. Allstates that purchased Flonase under a government employee healthplan were included in the definition of the class in the Flonasesettlement, Judge Brody said. But Louisiana did not receive anotice from class counsel of the settlement or the chance to optout.

"Assuming that Louisiana was properly included as an absent classmember, the notice received by the state was insufficient to meetthe 'stringent' test for determining whether it 'voluntarily' and'unequivocally' agreed to have its claims resolved through thesettlement agreement," Judge Brody said.

The purpose of the CAFA notice, Brody said, is to give states arole in ensuring their citizens are fairly compensated in classaction settlements. GSK argued the CAFA notice included thesettlement agreement and settlement notices, and therefore, thestate should have been made aware that it was part of thesettlement class. Judge Brody said it was possible for Louisianato have realized as much from reading the documents attached tothe CAFA notice.

"But given the purpose of the CAFA notice, it is just as likelythat Louisiana would have considered these documents with a viewof protecting the interests of its citizens," Judge Brody said."In short, it is not clear that upon receipt of the CAFA notice,Louisiana would have been aware that the state itself was a classmember and that, if it did not opt out, it would be bound by thesettlement agreement."

Judge Brody said that lack of clarity was "fatal" to GSK'sargument that Louisiana's failure to opt out equates to consent tothe federal court's jurisdiction.

"The test for finding a waiver of sovereign immunity is stringent,and ambiguities are resolved in favor of the sovereign," JudgeBrody said.

Attorneys at Ballard Spahr represented GSK and were notimmediately available for comment. Bart D. Cohen --bcohen@nussbaumpc.com -- of Nussbaum Law Group in Villanovarepresented Louisiana.

"We are obviously very pleased with the result and even more sothat Judge Brody wrote such a thoughtful opinion about such animportant issue," Mr. Cohen said.

GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Continues Fight to Supreme Court----------------------------------------------------------The Authors Guild et al. filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec.31, 2015, a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

According to the filing, Google made full digital copies ofmillions of books it obtained from libraries' shelves without theauthors' consent. As payment, Google gave the libraries digitalcopies of the books. Google makes the books' full text searchableon its revenue-generating search engine, and displays verbatimexcerpts in response to users' searches. The questions presentedare:

1. Whether, in order to be "transformative" under the fair- use exception to copyright, the use of the copyrighted work must produce "new expression, meaning, or message," as this Court stated in Campbell and as the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or whether the verbatim copying of works for a different, non-expressive purpose can be a transformative fair use, as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held.

2. Whether the Second Circuit's approach to fair use improperly makes "transformative purpose" the decisive factor, replacing the statutory four-factor test, as the Seventh Circuit has charged.

3. Whether the Second Circuit erred in concluding that a commercial business may evade liability for verbatim copying by arguing that the recipients of those copies will use them for lawful and beneficial purposes, a rationale that has been flatly rejected by the Sixth Circuit.

4. Whether a membership association of authors may assert copyright infringement claims on behalf of its members.

Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported thata recent court victories affirming that Google Books qualifies asfair use "threatens to undermine protection of copyrighted worksin the digital age to an extraordinary extent," the Authors Guildtold the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a petition filed on New Year's Eve, the guild's attorney PaulSmith of the Washington-based firm Jenner & Block is hoping tostretch the litigation into its 11th year.

"The copyright laws are intended to promote new expression, notjust the consumption of creative works," he wrote in a 36-pagepetition.

Within a year of Google Books' launch in late 2004, the guildfiled a class action in Federal Court hoping the snuff the SiliconValley giant's plans to digitize 15 million volumes within adecade. Google Books has since smoked past that goal with nearly25 million manuscripts on the Internet, and it won multiplerulings affirming its business model.

"It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, whilemaintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors andother creative individuals, and without adversely impacting therights of copyright holders," he wrote. "It has become aninvaluable research tool that permits students, teachers,librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locatebooks. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, toconduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books."

Chin later accepted a nomination to the Second Circuit Court ofAppeals, where three of his colleagues affirmed his decision latelast year.

"Google's making of a digital copy to provide a search function isa transformative use, which augments public knowledge by makingavailable information about plaintiffs' books without providingthe public with a substantial substitute for matter protected bythe plaintiffs' copyright interests in the original works orderivatives of them," Judge Pierre Leval wrote for the court onOct. 16.

"Whatever can be said about the scope of the fair-use doctrine,surely it cannot be that using copyrighted works withoutauthorization as a form of currency to maximize corporate profitsis a fair use," the petition states.

Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of Alum used bymunicipalities to treat potable water, wastewater and by pulp andpaper manufacturers as part of their manufacturing processes, andin lake treatment to reduce phosphorous levels contributing todegraded water quality.

But other factors, including allegations that managementintentionally steered its black employees into unsafe jobs at aSara Lee bakery that closed in 2011, also helped convince thedefendant to accept a hefty settlement rather than face an EasternDistrict of Texas jury, according to an attorney involved in thecase.

After the workers filed a federal lawsuit against the defendantlast year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissiondetermined that Hillshire Brands, who had bought the Sara Leefactory, had violated the workers' civil rights. The EEOC laterjoined the plaintiffs by filing its own hostile workplace lawsuitagainst the company in July.

The workers alleged that employee bathrooms at the bakery werecovered in racial graffiti, including liberal use of the N-wordand drawings of black men hanging from nooses. They also allegedthat management failed to remove the offensive remarks.

"Obviously, all of those things are horrible aspects of a hostilework environment case," said Jay Ellwanger, a partner in Austin'sDiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy who represents the workers. "WhatI think was unique in the case was the environmental aspect of thehostile work environment claims. What the EEOC found was that thecompany altered the terms and conditions for African-Americans towork in areas of the plant that was known to be contaminated byasbestos and other toxins."

Another important factor in forcing the settlement was the factthe Sara Lee plant was eventually sold and shut down before it wasacquired by Hillshire Brands, Mr. Ellwanger said.

"This is not like a company that was standing up for itsmanagement. They folded up shop and left town three years ago.If it were to go to trial, they wouldn't really have a currentemployee at the current location to stand up and tell their sideof the story," Mr. Ellwanger said. "I think those were allfactors that lead to the resolution of the case."

The parties entered into a consent decree that settled thelitigation on Dec. 18 and a U.S. magistrate judge signed an orderdismissing the cases on Dec. 21.

Tyson spokesman Worth Sparkman said the company doesn't agree withthe allegations in the complaints, but it opposes unlawfuldiscrimination in the workplace and believes that it made sense toresolve the litigation.

"Hillshire denies the characterizations made about plaintiffs'hostile work environment claims. Many of the plaintiffs admittedto not having ever heard a racial slur or experienced any raciallyinappropriate conduct throughout their long tenure with thecompany," Mr. Sparkman said. "Many of the plaintiffs testified toalleged conduct that predated 2010, and some of the complaintseven predated Sara Lee's purchase of the plant in 2008. Onlyafter the plant was closed in 2011 did the plaintiffs file acomplaint."

Mr. Sparkman added that "none of the plaintiffs' claims regardingharmful materials in the work environment were supported by anymedical or other scientific evidence."

Steve Fox -- sfox@polsinelli.com -- a shareholder in the Dallasoffice of Polsinelli who defends companies in employmentdiscrimination cases and was not involved in the litigation, saidHillshire Brands made the wise choice by settling with theplaintiffs.

"One, the bad acts were readily observable. And second, the cardswere stacked against the company," said Mr. Fox, who notes thatthe EEOC finds reasonable cause in less than 5 percent of thecomplaints it examines. "While a loss wasn't a certainty, it washighly likely," he said.

And while $4 million was a big settlement amount, Hillshire Brandsfaced much more exposure from a jury, Mr. Fox said.

"In addition to back wages of front pay, the [likelihood] that thejury would have awarded punitive damages is extremely high,"Mr. Fox said.

Identiv is a corporation organized and existing under the laws ofthe State of Delaware. It is a global security technology companythat provides trust solutions in the connected world. It Companyhas allegedly and repeatedly made material misrepresentations andomitted material information concerning, among other things, theCompany's revenue recognition practices, key accounting metrics,and its internal controls. Identiv common stock sank from $2.95 to$2.49 per share on December 1, 2015 after news that itsindependent accounting firm refused to conform to the Company'saccountants.

Plaintiff lost from purchases and sales of the Company'ssecurities.

Hart is the President of the Company, and he also serves on theBoard of Directors. Nelson was the Company Chief Financial Officerfrom December 2013 to November 2015. Ousley is the Chairman of theBoard of the Company, and he has served as director since July2014. He also currently serves as chairman of the Audit Committee.Humphreys is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and healso serves as a Director. Finney is the Interim Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company. Kremen and Wenzel serve as directors.

JAPAN: Filipino Wartime Sex Slaves Call for Compensation--------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that elderly Filipino women raped byJapanese troops during World War II are calling for compensationfrom Japan after Tokyo pledged $8.3 million for South Korean womenforced into Japanese military-run brothels during the war.

Their lawyers said on Jan. 6 that they are also exploring thepossibility of filing cases with United Nations bodies and holdingPhilippine President Benigno Aquino III liable for allegedlyfailing to support the case of the women against Japan.

Isabelita Vinuya, the 84-year-old president of a group ofFilipinos forced to provide sex to Japanese soldiers, appealed tothe Philippine government to support them in demanding justicefrom Japan.

Japan and South Korea earlier announced that they have settledtheir decades-long standoff over wartime sex slaves.

The investors claim Kingdom Trust Co. and Pensco Trust Co.conspired with William Apostelos and sold unregistered securitiesrelated to real estate and short-term loans. Last year, Aposteloswas charged by a federal grand jury with mail and wire fraud.

Apostelos -- who is not named as a defendant in the case --allegedly convinced investors to transfer their IRAs to KingdomTrust and Pensco Trust. He then "would either have the plaintiffsrequest the defendants purchase unregistered securities using IRAassets or Apostelos would have the plaintiffs execute powers ofattorney giving him (or one of his associates) the ability torequest the defendants purchase unregistered securities using theIRA assets," according to a Jan. 7 lawsuit.

Cynthia Boyd and Thomas Flanders, the lead plaintiffs in the case,say Kingdom Trust and Pensco Trust used their control of the IRAsto purchase unregistered securities in the amounts of $400,000 and$497,000, respectively.

The lawsuit says the securities are worthless because they werenot registered with the State of Ohio.

An article from the Dayton Daily News says Boyd is a formerfactory worker and Flanders is a former law enforcement officer.

In the same story, Toby Henderson, attorney for the plaintiffs,said, "These are both folks who were working class, blue collar.It certainly has been devastating for both of them."

"During that time period, Apostelos, individually and through hisvarious companies, raised at least $66.7 million from at least 350investors," the complaint states. "Apostelos portrayed himself asa sophisticated investor and businessman, and he exploited hisnetwork of clients, business associates, and friends to attractnew investors."

Boyd and Flanders seek class action certification and compensatorydamages for the alleged illegal sale of securities. Theirattorney, Henderson, is with the law firm Sebaly, Shillito andDyer in Dayton.

Kingdom Trust is located in Murray, Ky., while Pensco Trustoperates out of San Francisco.

LANZA ESTATE: Sandy Hook Shooting Victims' Lawsuits Settled-----------------------------------------------------------The Connecticut Law Tribune reports that one of several lawsuitsfiled by families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary Schoolshooting in 2012 has been officially resolved.

The families of more than a dozen victims will split $1.5 millionunder recently finalized claims against the gunman's mother'sestate. A lawyer for several victims' families says thesettlements were finalized Dec. 17. Details of the agreementswere first announced in August, and lawyers said at the time thatthe settlement had to be ratified by a probate court judge.

The lawsuits said Nancy Lanza failed to properly secure herlegally owned Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Her son, Adam Lanza, usedthe rifle to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at theNewtown school. He killed his mother before the school shootingand killed himself afterward.

The families of 16 victims will split $1.5 million from NancyLanza's homeowner's insurance. The lawsuits were filed on behalfof 14 of the victims who perished in the massacre, and by two ofthe survivors. One of the plaintiff's lawyers, Joshua Koskoff ofKoskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport, has called the claims onNancy Lanza's insurance policy "procedural."

"With this many claimants, the money ends up being a symbolicgesture; but it serves as an important reminder that people whokeep firearms in the home must be scrupulous about securing theirweapons," Mr. Koskoff said.

Mr. Koskoff also represents many of the same families in a lawsuitagainst Remington Outdoor Co., the distributor of the Bushmasterrifle Lanza used. In September, a Connecticut federal judge gaveplaintiffs a small victory when he decided to move the case backto state court. However, legal experts still expect attorneys forthe gun company to push to have the case dismissed under a federallaw that grant firearms manufacturers immunity from liability whencrimes are committed with their products.

Meanwhile, the families of two young victims have filed a lawsuitagainst Newtown and the school board. The 66-page wrongful deathlawsuit alleges that security measures at the school were notadequate.

LIVE BROADBAND: Misclassifies Technicians, Texas Suit Claims------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Services reported that Live Broadbandmisclassifies its technicians and installers as independentcontractors to stiff them for overtime, a class action claims inFederal Court in Dallas.

LUMOS LABS: Lumosity to Pay $2MM to Settle FTC False Ad Charges---------------------------------------------------------------The creators and marketers of the Lumosity "brain training"program have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission chargesalleging that they deceived consumers with unfounded claims thatLumosity games can help users perform better at work and inschool, and reduce or delay cognitive impairment associated withage and other serious health conditions.

As part of the settlement, Lumos Labs, the company behindLumosity, will pay $2 million in redress and will notifysubscribers of the FTC action and provide them with an easy way tocancel their auto-renewal to avoid future billing.

"Lumosity preyed on consumers' fears about age-related cognitivedecline, suggesting their games could stave off memory loss,dementia, and even Alzheimer's disease," said Jessica Rich,Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "But Lumositysimply did not have the science to back up its ads."

According to the FTC's complaint, the Lumosity program consists of40 games purportedly designed to target and train specific areasof the brain. The company advertised that training on these gamesfor 10 to 15 minutes three or four times a week could help usersachieve their "full potential in every aspect of life." Thecompany sold both online and mobile app subscriptions, withoptions ranging from monthly ($14.95) to lifetime ($299.95)memberships.

Lumosity has been widely promoted though TV and radioadvertisements on networks including CNN, Fox News, the HistoryChannel, National Public Radio, Pandora, Sirius XM, and Spotify.The defendants also marketed through emails, blog posts, socialmedia, and on their website, Lumosity.com, and used Google AdWordsto drive traffic to their website, purchasing hundreds of keywordsrelated to memory, cognition, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease,according to the complaint.

The FTC alleges that the defendants claimed training with Lumositywould

1) improve performance on everyday tasks, in school, at work, and in athletics;

3) reduce cognitive impairment associated with health conditions, including stroke, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, ADHD, the side effects of chemotherapy, and Turner syndrome, and that scientific studies proved these benefits.

The complaint also charges the defendants with failing to disclosethat some consumer testimonials featured on the website had beensolicited through contests that promised significant prizes,including a free iPad, a lifetime Lumosity subscription, and around-trip to San Francisco.

The proposed stipulated federal court order requires the companyand the individual defendants, co-founder and former CEO KunalSarkar and co-founder and former Chief Scientific Officer MichaelScanlon, to have competent and reliable scientific evidence beforemaking future claims about any benefits for real-worldperformance, age-related decline, or other health conditions.

The order also imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs,which will be suspended due to its financial condition after thecompany pays $2 million to the Commission. The order requires thecompany to notify subscribers who signed up for an auto-renewalplan between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014 about the FTCaction and to provide a means to cancel their subscription.

The Commission vote authorizing the filing of the complaint andproposed stipulated order was 4-0, with Commissioner Julie Brillissuing a separate concurring statement. The FTC filed thecomplaint and proposed order in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California, San Francisco Division.

The FTC is a member of the National Prevention Council, whichprovides coordination and leadership at the federal levelregarding prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices.This case advances the National Prevention Council's goal ofincreasing the number of Americans who are healthy at every stageof life. This case is part of the FTC's ongoing efforts to protectconsumers from misleading health advertising.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when ithas "reason to believe" that the law has been or is beingviolated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is inthe public interest. A stipulated order has the force of law whensigned by the district court judge.

INSTACART is a same-day grocery delivery company deliveringgroceries and home essentials from a variety of local stores.INSTACART is a new service that sends independent contractorDelivery Drivers to pick-up and deliver groceries for theircustomers, wherever their customers are. The Company provides adelivery driver application and offers delivery services atanywhere on demand.

NAZARETH CLASSIC: "Palominos" Suit Alleges Denial of Rest Periods-----------------------------------------------------------------Azucena P. Palominos, individually and on behalf of all currentand former employees of Defendants in the State of California, v.Nazareth Classic Care Community, Inc., a California corporation,and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case: CIV536397 (Cal. Super.,County of San Mateo) November 30, 2015, alleges that Nazarethdenied its caregivers, medical technicians, and housekeepers restperiods as required by California law.

Nazareth is a California corporation headquartered in San Mateo,California. Nazareth operates a facility located in Menlo Park.The facility is 45-bed residential facility that provides memorycare services for persons with mid to high-level Alzheimer's ordementia.

If the case goes to trial, class counsel can now tell the jurythat the missing evidence would have been helpful to their case.

A 24-page opinion U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet details theproblems that have plagued the case ever since its filing roughlysix years ago.

East Harlem resident Sharif Stinson brought the lawsuit in 2010,seeking to represent a class of potentially hundreds of thousandsof black New Yorkers accusing the New York City Police Departmentof issuing 850,000 phony summonses in service of anunconstitutional quota scheme.

New York City waited three years to begin preserving evidence.

Sweet on Jan. 5, 2016 called this delay "the first and mostegregious instance of gross negligence."

During the discovery process, Stinson's lawyers noticed what theycalled a "stunning pattern" of missing evidence. The courtformally found that police "shredded" hard copies of records fromCompStat meetings and "destroyed" officer activity reports.

Sweet also slammed the city for not preserving text messages andfailing to produce responsive documents, including ex-NYPDCommissioner Ray Kelly's emails.

Late last year, Kelly insisted in a sworn declaration that it was"never my practice" to use email or text messages to discuss any"substantive communication."

His former chief of department, Joseph Esposito, signed a similarstatement claiming "it was never my practice to use email or textmessaging to communicate about topics like summonses, enforcementactivity, performance goals."

At the time, Stinson's lawyer Elinor Sutton from the firm QuinnEmanuel called these statements "demonstrably false," and the cityindignantly replied in a brief that "Commissioner Kelly did notcommit perjury."

But Sweet found that the officials' alleged distaste for email was"contradicted by emails that the plaintiffs have obtained throughother means."

"For instance, the plaintiffs attached a copy of a Sept. 27, 2010,email from Commissioner Kelly's BlackBerry in which he approvesthe transfer of a police officer from a precinct in Queens to onein the Bronx, based in part on her having told two officers tostop writing summonses," the opinion states.

Still, Sweet found that any allegation of perjury would be"unsupported," and there was "no basis to conclude the city actedin bad faith."

"The city's conduct shows a broad failure to take its preservationobligations seriously rather than any deliberate attempt to lie ormislead," Sweet added.

As a result, the court found the plaintiffs entitled to an"inference that helpful evidence may have been lost, not relieffrom their obligation to prove their case."

A New York City Law Department spokesman emphasized this findingin a statement.

"While the court suggests that there may have been systemicfailures in preserving electronic and other communications, JudgeSweet categorically dismisses any suggestion that either formerCommissioner Kelly or former Chief Esposito testified falsely asto the matters in question," the spokesman said.

In a phone interview, Stinson's attorney Sutton applauded the"severe consequences" the city will face.

"Plaintiffs are pleased to see that the federal court has ensuredthat the defendants will face severe consequences for failing totake their legal obligations seriously, especially in light of thefact that this case concerns the constitutional rights of hundredsof thousands of individuals," Sutton said. "Plaintiffs hope thatthe court's decision will help ensure that relevant evidence is nolonger destroyed in future litigations concerning the NYPD.

NEW YORK: Group of Terminally Ill Patients Appeal Case Dismissal----------------------------------------------------------------Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that agroup of terminally ill patients seeking to block prosecution ofdoctors who would aid them in dying is appealing a Manhattanjudge's decision to dismiss their lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in Myers v. Schneiderman, 151162/2015, whichinclude five medical professionals and the advocacy group End ofLife Choices New York, seek a declaration that physicians whoprovide "aid-in-dying" service to mentally competent, terminallyill patients are not criminally liable under existing statestatutes and an injunction to prohibit prosecution.

The plaintiffs are suing New York Attorney General EricSchneiderman and five New York district attorneys withjurisdiction over the locations where the plaintiffs live andpractice.

"The patients seek to exercise control, avoid a loss of dignityand reduce unbearable suffering as they approach death byobtaining a prescription from their physicians for medication theycould ingest to achieve a peaceful death," the brief said.

The district attorneys are Janet DiFiore of Westchester County,Sandra Doorley of Monroe County, Acting Saratoga County DistrictAttorney Karen Heggen, Robert Johnson of Bronx County and CyrusVance Jr. of Manhattan.

The parties have entered into a stipulation that the DAs would bebound by any result reached in litigation between the plaintiffsand Mr. Schneiderman's office.

Under Penal Law Sec. 120.30, it is a class E felony, punishable byup to four years in prison, to "promote a suicide attempt," whichis defined as intentionally causing or aiding another person tocommit suicide. This section applies if the person does not die.Under Sec. 125.15, the act of intentionally causing or aidinganother person to commit suicide, in which the person dies, isclassified as second-degree manslaughter, a class C felonycarrying a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

On Oct. 16, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Kenney found forthe plaintiffs on the issue of standing but found forMr. Schneiderman and the district attorneys on the statutorylanguage issue. The judge wrote that the court must avoid"intrusion on the primary domain on another branch of government"with respect to analyzing and enforcing the law, and that statelaw pertaining to physician-assisted suicide is "clear andconcise," which negates the need for judicial review of thestatutes.

In their 26-page appeal, filed late in November with the AppellateDivision, First Department, the plaintiffs argued that JusticeKenney failed to address their allegation that aid-in-dying is notassisted suicide, and that it is indistinguishable from otherlawful medical practices such as terminal sedation, in whichpatients are kept sedated while food and fluids are withheld fromthem.

With regard to the state's laws on assisted suicide, theplaintiffs asserted that Justice Kenney did not address in heropinion if the statutes applied to aid-in-dying. They also arguedthat Justice Kenney did not address New York's "fundamental commonlaw right to self-determination with respect to one's body and tocontrol the course of his medical treatment".

"Although New York courts have not yet addressed the specificquestion of whether aid-in-dying is a fundamental right, thefundamental right to self-determination is certainly broad enoughto encompass aid-in-dying," the appeal stated.

Aid-in-dying is legal in the states of Oregon and Washington.Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Dirks appeared for thedefendants at the trial level. Mr. Schneiderman's office declinedto comment on the appeal.

Plaintiff alleges unfair discretion on the part of the Defendantin determining the crediting rate by which retirement plan incomeis invested into group annuity contracts. By setting the creditingrate below its internal rate of return, it allegedly guarantees asubstantial profit for itself.

John W. Wittman is a participant in the Voith Retirement SavingsPlan for Bargaining Unit Employees.

New York Life Insurance Company is a legal reserve insurancecompany authorized under the insurance laws of New York. Itsprincipal place of business is New York and sells group annuitycontracts to retirement plans.

PANASONIC CORP: Non-Calif. Law Claims Tossed in Capacitor Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Services, reportedthat a federal judge in San Francisco in dumped non-California lawclaims from an antitrust class action accusing major tech firms ofconspiring to fix the prices of capacitors, a common component inmost electronic devices.

The consolidated class action stems in part from a complaint filedby lead plaintiff Chip-Tech in July 2014 against a slew ofcorporations including Panasonic, Hiatchi, Samsung, NEC, ROHM andothers.

In his Dec. 30 ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato foundindirect buyers of capacitors lacked standing to sue over claimsarising from antitrust and consumer protection laws in 21 statesother than California.

The indirect buyers claimed one of their named plaintiffs, theliquidating trustee of the now-bankrupt Circuit City Stores,received deliveries of price-fixed capacitors in 21 states andtherefore established standing to sue.

But Donato found the capacitors were actually purchased inVirginia and receiving deliveries of price-fixed goods is notenough to establish Article III standing.

The judge ruled that two individual indirect buyer plaintiffsresiding in other states failed to establish standing as wellbecause there was no evidence that they bought a productcontaining a price-fixed capacitor.

"Merely living in a state, even one where price-fixing conductoccurred, is not a basis for standing if the plaintiff did notactually pay a supracompetitive price there for the accusedproduct," Donato wrote in his 19-page ruling. "Standing does notarise simply because illegality is in the air."

The judge also refused to grant Hitachi Chemical Co. America'smotion to dismiss indirect buyer claims, finding the plaintiffsadequately alleged the company was established "to effectuate andachieve the cartel's aims and purposes" for the benefit of itsJapanese parent firm.

Specifically, the plaintiffs obtained evidence through discoverythat showed a Hitachi corporate officer represented the interestsof the "entire corporate family" in meetings with companies takingpart in the conspiracy, according to the ruling.

However, the judge did dismiss one defendant, American ShizukiCorporation, from the direct buyers' class action, findingallegations against the American subsidiary were "too paltry."American Shuziki's motion to dismiss was granted with leave forplaintiffs to amend.

The indirect buyers were given until Jan. 27 to file an amendedcomplaint to fix standing issues with their non-California statelaw claims against the defendants.

A hearing on class certification motions has been scheduled forJuly 20, 2016.

Panasonic and other technology firms are also fighting similarantitrust class actions for their alleged roles in conspiracies tofix the prices of lithium ion batteries and electronic.

The case is, In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation No. 14-cv-03264-JD (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Court's December 30, 2015ruling is available at http://is.gd/t64Mpmfrom Leagle.com.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Jacklin ChouLem, United States Department of Justice & Howard J. Parker, U.S.Dept. of Justice.

PARAGON CONTRACTORS: Accused of Child Labor by Federal Lawyers--------------------------------------------------------------Lindsay Whitehurst, writing for The Associated Press, reports thata Utah contracting company frequently used kids from a polygamousgroup as unpaid workers on a pecan farm during school hours,according to federal labor lawyers pushing back against thecompany's contention that the hours were legal because the kidswere home-schooled.

The U.S. Labor Department attorneys argue in new court documentsthat children worked long days harvesting nuts for years, and alsodid pruning, trimming and watering of the trees and cleaning ofthe fields.

"Instead of going to school, hundreds -- if not over one thousand-- of children were performing the duties related to Paragon'scontract," federal labor lawyers say in court documents. "Somechildren were taken out of school to perform these duties on ayear-round basis to prepare the ranch for the harvest. Otherchildren were taken out of school for weeks at a time to performthese duties during the actual harvest."

The agency wants a judge to order Paragon Contractors to pay backwages and stop the practices described by alleged former childworkers and captured by news cameras during a harvest in 2012. Ahearing in the case is set for Jan. 25.

Paragon denies doing anything wrong. They say that the harvestmanager invited families from the group led by Warren Jeffs togather nuts left on the ground after the mechanized harvest wasdone and keep half of what they gathered for their own use.

They have said the work wasn't forced, and the women and childrenwere not employees.

Farm work is generally exempt from child labor laws in Utah aslong as it's done outside of school hours, and Paragon says the2012 pecan harvest can't be considered a school day becausechildren in the group are homeschooled and minors who worked onthe farm were with their parents.

Federal attorneys disagree. In court documents filed on Dec. 22,they say that under the law, it doesn't matter whether thechildren were taught at home, they still shouldn't have beenworking during public school hours.

Pointing to sworn statements from adults who say they worked onthe farm when they were children, the government says children asyoung as 6 years old worked on the ranch for long hours, got sickfrom crawling over the damp ground and were sent to work with thenuts even if were allergic

Federal lawyers say the company violated a 2007 order involvingunderage labor and should be held in contempt for failing to pay1,400 workers -- including 175 children -- who worked at thedirection of church leaders who told parents to take days off fromhomeschooling during the 2012 harvest.

Paragon and several members of the polygamous group have alreadybeen fined a total of $1.9 million after a labor investigationfound that sect leaders directed the harvest that took place inHurricane, about 300 miles south of Salt Lake City.

Authorities say those leaders are loyal to Warren Jeffs, who isserving a life prison sentence in Texas after being convicted in2011 of sexually assaulting underage girls he considered brides.Members of his sect, a radical offshoot of mainstream Mormonism,believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.

Polygamy is a legacy of the early teachings of The Church of JesusChrist of Latter-day Saints. However, the mainstream church andits 15 million members worldwide abandoned the practice more thana century ago.

Huffman and Voils worked as forklift operators. Crossno works as abottle inspector and/or packer. Grider works as a materialhandler. They allege the Defendant for downward adjustment oftheir time card, thus not showing overtime.

Parker Plastics, Inc. is an Oklahoma domestic corporation with itsprincipal place of business in Sand Springs, Tulsa County,Oklahoma. It is a custom plastic blow molding company for custompackaging solutions. Parker Plastics operates four manufacturingfacilities in Sand Springs, Oklahoma, Hagerstown, Maryland,Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin and Las Vegas, Nevada.

PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $35 Million to Smoker's Widower----------------------------------------------------------Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that aMiami-Dade jury has awarded $35 million to the husband of a Miamiwoman who died of lung cancer after smoking for 41 years.

The verdict is the fourth multimillion-dollar tobacco verdictobtained by lead counsel Gary Paige of Gordon & Doner of Daviethis year and his second largest. His co-counsel were Adam Tropof Trop Law Group in Fort Lauderdale and David J. Sales of DavidJ. Sales of West Palm Beach, with Robert Philipson of Legal-ezeLitigation Consulting and Graphics in Fort Lauderdale assisting onjury and witness consulting.

The verdict, handed down Dec. 22, came after an approximatelythree-week trial. One of the Engle Progeny cases, it included $10million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitivedamages -- $12.5 million against Philip Morris USA Inc. and $12.5million against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Jurors attributed 6percent fault to the decedent, Patricia Mary Ledoux.

The case was filed by Ledoux's husband, Miami resident RolandLedoux, in 2007.

"Mr. Ledoux waited a long time to get his day in court," Paigesaid in a statement. "This verdict proves that corporations mustbe held accountable for their lies and deceit no matter how longthey are able to conceal them."

Ledoux began smoking at the age of 14 and died at 55, just monthsafter being diagnosed with small cell lung cancer. According toplaintiff lawyers, she unsuccessfully tried to quit smoking formany years using nicotine gum, a nicotine patch, hypnosis andother means. She also switched to filtered and light cigarettesbased on reassurances from the industry that they were safer.Ledoux, a mother of twins, worked in the airline industry.

Testifying for the plaintiffs in addition to Roland Ledoux were aStanford University historian who testified about the tobaccoindustry's conspiracy to hide the health hazards of cigarettes andan addiction expert who testified about the strong addictivenature of cigarettes.

The defense only called two witnesses to the stand--an addictionexpert who testified that Ledoux was not addicted to cigarettesand corporate representatives from each tobacco company whotestified that the companies have changed, are now regulated bythe FDA and now inform users the product is addictive.

Jurors answered affirmatively that Ledoux was addicted tocigarettes and they caused her lung cancer and ultimate death, andthat the companies conspired to fraudulently conceal the healthhazards of smoking.

"We now know filters and lights were a marketing ploy dreamt up bymarketing executives to sell cigarettes," Mr. Trop said. "It tookpublic health nearly 50 years to discover that they were no saferand in fact are more dangerous. Their fraud and concealment costMrs. Ledoux her life -- this should never have happened."

PHILIP MORRIS: Pa. High Court Denies Appeal of Settlement Changes-----------------------------------------------------------------Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports thatthe Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denied the appeal of a lowercourt's ruling that modified a partial settlement agreementbetween several states and tobacco companies in a way that savedPennsylvania about $126 million.

In April, a five-member en banc panel of the Commonwealth Courtunanimously affirmed a trial court's determination that anarbitration panel had exceeded its authority when it allowedseveral states and tobacco companies to enter into a partialsettlement, modifying the requirements of a master settlement inwhich the companies agreed to pay the states billions of dollars.

The Commonwealth Court's ruling affirmed a trial court decisioninvalidating the partial settlement and affirmed the trial court'smodification of the partial settlement, which reducedPennsylvania's financial burden from $242 million to $116 million.

While much of the arguments in the case had focused on thestandard of review that the trial court needed to follow, JudgeRobert Simpson, who wrote the court's opinion, said the case camedown to an essence test regarding whether the partial settlementderived from the initial global settlement agreement.

According to Judge Simpson, in 1998, 52 states and territoriesentered into a "master settlement" to end litigation against thetobacco industry for recovery of health care costs. Not alltobacco companies participated in the settlement, Judge Simpsonsaid.

Under the settlement agreement, the participating companies agreedto make annual payments to an independent auditor who would thenallocate the payments to the states. The payment to the auditorin 2003 was $6.4 billion, and Pennsylvania was allocated about$370 million, according to Judge Simpson.

Under the master settlement, the payment is subject to anadjustment determined by lost market share the participatingtobacco companies suffer due to their compliance with the mastersettlement. However, according to the settlement terms, statesare exempt from paying toward the adjustment if, during the yearat issue, the state "diligently enforced" a qualified statute thatneutralizes the cost disadvantages for the participatingcompanies. The non-diligent states then split the adjustmentpayment, according to Judge Simpson.

Starting in 2003, disputes arose regarding the payments. In thatyear, the companies sought a $1.1 billion adjustment that thestates rejected.

While some states submitted to arbitration, Pennsylvania, whichwas eventually determined to be a "non-diligent" state, refused.

In November 2012, the tobacco companies and 19 states reached apartial agreement over the payments from 2003 through 2012.However, because this agreement increased the burden for "non-diligent," non-settling states, Pennsylvania and other statesobjected to the partial settlement.

The settling parties filed a proposed stipulated partial awardwith an arbitration panel. The arbitration panel entered apartial settlement award that included directing the auditor totreat the settling states as "diligent."

In November 2013, Pennsylvania filed a motion with the trial courtto vacate the final award and partial settlement.

PROFESSIONAL RODEO: Cowboys May Compete in Events, Judge Says-------------------------------------------------------------David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported thatcowboys who formed a rival rodeo association may compete in eventssanctioned by the allegedly monopolistic Professional RodeoCowboys Association, for the next six weeks anyway, a federaljudge in Dallas ruled.

The newly formed Elite Rodeo Association and rodeo athletes TrevorBazile, Bobby Mote and Ryan Motes filed an antitrust class actionagainst the PRCA in November last year. They claim the PRCAquickly enacted bylaws banning ERA athletes from competing inPRCA-sanctioned events after ERA was formed.

The ERA's first season begins this year and will culminate in aWorld Championship Rodeo at the American Airlines Center indowntown Dallas in November.

"PRCA's message is clear: If you want to compete in PRCA-sanctioned rodeos, it's the PRCA way or the highway," the 40-pagecomplaint stated. "The PRCA bylaw is intended to force members tomake a Hobson's choice: i.e., to participate in any PRCA-sanctioned rodeos, a rodeo athlete must do so exclusively and stopparticipating in any ERA rodeo. PRCA is bullying its ownmembership into toeing the PRCA line by threatening any member whowants to be involved in ERA with being locked out of PRCA rodeos."

On Jan. 5, U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn ordered that allmembers of the proposed class can compete in PRCA-sanctionedevents until Feb. 12, regardless of whether they were issuedcurrent PRCA membership.

According to the 3-page order, the PRCA agreed to the interiminclusion of plaintiff class members after a Dec. 29 hearing onplaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against theirexclusion from PRCA events. Lynn has yet to rule on that motion,according to court records.

The interim inclusion of the plaintiff class members does notinclude events in the PRCA's Wrangler Champions Challenge events.In the event the plaintiffs' motion is denied, the PRCAcompetitions in which class members participate will not count forprize money or PRCA rankings, the order states.

The plaintiffs say they want to co-exist with PRCA, and comparetheir group to smaller regional rodeo associations and to thesuccessful Professional Bull Riders sanctioning body, formed inthe early 1990s by the top 20 PRCA bull riders at the time.

The PRCA describes itself as the largest and oldest rodeo-sanctioning body in the world. It holds more than 600 multiple-event rodeos per year. The plaintiffs contend they have beenlongtime, loyal, dues-paying members of the PRCA. They claim thereis no legitimate or competitive reason for the PRCA's new bylaws.

"No other sport threatens to kick out its top athletes andvoluntarily chooses to lose revenue from those athletes in theform of membership fees and all other forms of revenue from fanand sponsorship interest," the complaint states. "The PRCA's newbylaws only serve to hurt the sport by reducing output as ERA willadd events, fans, sponsorships, and television interest to rodeoin the United States now and in the future."

PRCA spokesman Jim Bainbridge said in November that the group will"vigorously defend its position" in the dispute.

PURDUE PHARMA: To Pay $24MM Over Misleading OxyContin Marketing---------------------------------------------------------------Adam Beam, writing for The Associated Press, reports that themaker of OxyContin will pay Kentucky $24 million over the nexteight years as part of the settlement of a long-running lawsuitthat accused the company of misleading the public about theaddictiveness of the powerful prescription drug.

The state first filed the lawsuit against Purdue Pharma in 2007.The Connecticut-based company has had FDA approval since 1995 tomarket OxyContin, a type of opioid that can relieve pain and hassimilar qualities to the illegal drug heroin.

Kentucky officials accused Purdue Pharma of marketing theprescription painkiller as nonaddictive because it was a pillthat, when swallowed, slowly released the drug over 12 hours.However, users soon discovered if they crushed the pill the druglost its time release qualities and created an instant high.

State officials said that led to a wave of addiction and increasedmedical costs across the state, particularly in eastern Kentuckywhere many injured coal miners were prescribed the drug. FormerAttorney General Greg Stumbo, who filed the lawsuit in 2007, saidthe case could be worth as much as $1 billion if it ever got infront of a jury.

Purdue Pharma replaced the drug with a new version in 2010 thatdeters abuse.

Conway, a Democrat who leaves office next month, said in a newsrelease the case was "still facing significant legal issues." Thestate Supreme Court was still considering whether Purdue Pharmamissed a deadline to dispute the facts of the case. Thatdecision, if awarded in Kentucky's favor, would greatly help thestate wins the case.

In 2007, Conway said Purdue Pharma offered Kentucky $500,000 tosettle the lawsuit. The state refused.

"Purdue Pharma created havoc in Kentucky, and I am glad it will beheld accountable," Conway said in a news release. "Purdue lit afire of addiction with OxyContin that spread across this state,and Kentucky is still reeling from its effects."

The agreement says Purdue Pharma will pay Kentucky $12 millionfollowed by another $12 million over the next eight years. Thecourt ordered the state to spend the money on addiction treatmentprograms

Purdue Pharma did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlementagreement.

Purdue Pharma General Counsel Philip C. Strassburger said in anews release the company has focused on reducing the abuse ofprescription opioids for the past 10 years. He said thesettlement allows the company to "focus on bringing innovativeabuse-deterrent medicines to patients and our other efforts tocombat prescription drug abuse and overuse."

Also on Dec. 23, Conway announced a $15.5 million settlement withJohnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals.Janssen makes Risperdal, an antipsychotic prescription drug usedto treat schizophrenia and acute mania associated with bipolardisorder. The lawsuit accuses the companies of marketing the drugwithout disclosing its side effects.

Janssen agreed to pay Kentucky $15.5 million. The company did notadmit wrongdoing.

QUINN EMANUEL: Attorney Loses Overtime Class Action Bid-------------------------------------------------------Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that anattorney hired on a temporary contract basis to review documentsat a law firm is not entitled to overtime pay because his workinvolved using his judgment as a lawyer, a federal judge hasruled.

William Henig sought overtime pay from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &Sullivan under the Fair Labor Standards Act, saying he did no morethan review 13,000 documents for whether they were, or were not,responsive to a discovery request.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, lawfirms are exempt from the requirement to pay overtime, butMr. Henig said he was not engaged in the practice of law duringhis two-month stint at Quinn Emanuel as he was not required toexercise legal judgment and was simply engaged in the mundanetagging of documents on the firm's Document Review Project.

But Southern District Judge Ronnie Abrams granted summary judgmentto Quinn Emanuel in the putative class action of Henig v. QuinnEmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, 13-cv-1432, commenting that "Not allof [mass document review] is law at its grandest but all of it isthe practice of law. Mr. Henig was engaged in that practice."

In 2012, Mr. Henig was placed with Quinn Emanuel by the legalstaffing company Providus New York. His job, with the firm's"First Level Review Team," paid him $35 an hour, with 57-60 hourweeks and he was expected to review 50 to 60 documents an hour.After brief orientation and a slide show presentation, he said,all he had to do was tag documents "responsive" or "non-responsive," a determination that depended solely on terms ornames contained on lists and charts provided by the law firm.

But the presentation also referred to separate sub-tags forattorney-client privilege, work product and deliberative processprivilege. It instructed team members to "err in favor ofdesignating a document which has any possibility of beingprivileged as 'privileged," warning "that [p]rivilege can betricky and there are a lot of gray areas."

And in September 2012, the review team received more detailedinstructions on whether and when to mark a document as privileged.

In her decision, Judge Abrams noted that the presentation alsotold the team to look for "key" and "interesting" documents that"are interesting or important to the case and you feel should beflagged for the group, such as documents that would be helpful indepositions or briefs."

Mr. Henig argued that the presentation did not accurately describethe job he did at the firm, but the judge was unpersuaded.

"Even assuming that plaintiff did receive verbal instructions thatcontradicted the presentation, however, those instructions did notstrip plaintiff's work on the document review project of all legaljudgment," she said.

At oral argument on Oct. 29, Mr. Henig's attorneys conceded thathe was not claiming he was doing "work a machine could do" butthey insisted the work only involved human judgment, not legaljudgment.

But Judge Abrams said "plaintiff's tagging history and his otherdescriptions of his role on the document review project, however,confirm that his job involved more than the largely mindless taskthat would result from following the verbal instructions to theletter."

Plaintiffs work as entertainers for the clubs operated by theDefendant. They claim to work in excess of 40 hours per weekwithout applicable minimum wage and overtime premium. Plaintiffsonly compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons.

Rameses is a Florida corporation operating under the name"Cleo's." Clayton is a Florida corporation operating under thename "Diamond Club." C&L is a Florida corporation operating underthe name "Crystal Cabaret." Doll House is a Florida corporationoperating under the name "Thee Doll House." Wilan is a Floridacorporation operating under the name "Stars." Carol A. Uranick isthe President of Rameses, Clayton, C&L, Doll House and Wilan.These establishments are adult entertainment clubs.

RMR is a sub-contractor for municipalities and companies that selland deliver water and natural gas to homes and businesses inMinnesota. The services that RMR performs include reading gas andwater meters, collections, turning meters on and off, performingsafety inspections, and other related services.

Rush Wellsite Services, LLC, is a domestic limited liabilitycompany under the laws of South Dakota, registered to do businessin the State of Texas, providing products and services in the oiland gas industry. Its principal address is 1500 East Dave WardDrive, Suite 100 Conway, Arkansas 72032.

Lee Whitworth and Paul Whitworth worked the oilfields in Texas andPennsylvania as field hands field hands, operators, wirelineoperators. Plaintiffs worked approximately 70-90 hours per weekwithout overtime compensation.

SANOFI AMERICAN: Weil Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------On January 6, 2016, Weil achieved a major victory for Sanofi andits former Chief Executive Officer, Christopher Viehbacher, in asecurities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York. The plaintiff in the action,representing a putative class of investors in Sanofi AmericanDepositary Shares, principally alleged that Sanofi's publicdisclosures were materially misleading because they failed todisclose that growth in Sanofi's diabetes franchise was boosted byillicit promotional activities. In a thorough 37-page opinion,Judge P. Kevin Castel dismissed the complaint in its entirety,holding that the plaintiff failed to plead with particularity theexistence of an illegal scheme, much less that Sanofi's publicdisclosures were misleading or that either Sanofi or Mr.Viehbacher acted with an intent to defraud investors.

This is Weil's second significant securities litigation win forSanofi in less than a year. In January 2015, Judge Paul A.Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York granted in itsentirety Sanofi's motion to dismiss a securities fraud classaction and a related case for securities fraud challengingstatements regarding the results of Phase 3 clinical trials forthe multiple sclerosis drug Lemtrada and the drug's prospects forapproval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. JudgeEngelmayer's decision is currently on appeal before the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The deal, unveiled in a court filing on Dec. 15, would resolve aFair Labor Standards Act lawsuit brought against Skadden andco-defendant Tower Legal Staffing Inc. in July 2013. The proposedsettlement calls for a $75,000 payout to named plaintiffDavid Lola and two other contract lawyers who performed documentreview for Skadden.

Tower, a staffing outlet that hired and formally paid the contractlawyers' regular wages, will cover the full costs of thesettlement, according to court documents. The agreement is subjectto court approval.

The case has attracted widespread attention because it threatenedlaw firms' ability to rely on contract attorneys withouttriggering overtime requirements. Lawyers generally fall under anovertime exemption for professionals under the FLSA, but theplaintiffs maintained that the tasks they performed were somundane that the exemption did not apply.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived thelawsuit in July on the grounds that it was prematurely dismissed,reversing a September 2014 decision by Manhattan U.S. DistrictJudge Richard Sullivan.

While the settlement would allow Skadden to exit the case, itleaves unanswered the key question of whether some legal work isso routine that it should not be considered the practice of law.

The settlement also doesn't address whether Skadden should havebeen considered the contract lawyers' joint employer along withTower. (In the agreement, Skadden explicitly denies that it wasthe plaintiffs' employer or joint employer under federal or statelaws.)

Each of those questions remains in play, however, in a similarproposed class action against Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivanand legal staffing company Providus New York LLC that is stillpending in Manhattan federal court.

In that lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams declined inDecember 2013 to dismiss FLSA claims lodged by contract lawyerWilliam Henig. The judge also allowed limited discovery on thequestion of whether Mr. Henig had been practicing law while doingdocument review, and the two sides squared off at a summaryjudgment hearing in October. The judge has yet to rule.

Maimon Kirschenbaum of Joseph & Kirschenbaum, who represents theplaintiffs in both cases, didn't immediately respond to a phonemessage on Dec. 16. In the settlement papers filed on Dec. 15,Mr. Kirschenbaum described the agreement with Skadden and Tower asa "particularly excellent result." He wrote that each of thethree named plaintiffs will receive the maximum compensatorydamages and roughly one-third of the possible liquidated damages.

"Although plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss, the question ofhow much judgment can be exercised by a contract attorney beforehe or she is professionally exempt is still an unsettledquestion," Mr. Kirschenbaum wrote. "In light of these risks,plaintiffs' recovery . . . is clearly fair and reasonable."

Along with named plaintiff Lola, two other former Skadden contractlawyers who opted into the FLSA collective action, George EdwinRush II and Lisa Gale Lewis, would receive funds from thesettlement. Mr. Lola's journey from aspiring patent lawyer to adown-on-his-luck temporary attorney was chronicled in 2014 byReuters blogger Alison Frankel.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Residents Want Facility Shut Down----------------------------------------------------------Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Services, reportedthat, with 12,000 Los Angelenos displaced by a massive, continuingleak of methane gas, residents of the northwest San FernandoValley demanded that the site be shut down, at a Saturday, Jan. 9meeting of an administrative law panel in Los Angeles.

Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency last week.Residents of the Porter Ranch neighborhood began complaining of arotten egg smell on Oct. 23, and engineers have said the leakwhich originates far underground, could take as long as three moremonths to fix.

Millions of cubic feet of methane and other toxic chemicals,including benzene, have leaked from the natural gas well atSoCalGas' Aliso Canyon storage field -- north of Porter Ranch inthe northwest San Fernando Valley. Residents have sufferedheadaches, nosebleeds, shortness of breath and nausea. Thousandshave been evacuated from their homes, two schools have beenevacuated, and at least one class action has been filed demandingthat the gas company buy the emptied houses.

A Los Angeles City Council estimated that 12,000 people had beendisplaced by the environmental disaster, during the Saturdaymorning meeting with an independent administrative law panel atthe Granada Hill Charter School.

Maureen Capra, 65, told the panel she had lived in the communityfor 40 years. Her daughter suffered bloody noses growing up in thehouse, but the problem ended when she moved to New York. Now whenher daughter and granddaughter come to visit, their noses are"gushing blood," she said. She said she also suffered headaches,asthma and bloody noses.

"It's killing us. Do something, please," Capra said as she wipedtears from her eyes.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District has petitioned thepanel -- an engineer, an attorney, a doctor, and two publicmembers -- to force SoCalGas, which owns the storage fields, tocomply with state air-quality rules. Scores of residents in thepacked hall held signs aloft: "Shut. It. All. Down." They want theSCAQMD to go further and order SoCalGas to shut down the AlisoCanyon storage field.

The energy company is already facing at least 20 lawsuits.Residents have complained of headaches, nosebleeds, shortness ofbreath and nausea. SoCalGas insists that natural gas is notharmful, though it contains foul smelling odorants used to detectgas leaks.

In statement before the floor was opened to the public, SoCalGasattorney Robert Wyman said the energy company had responded within24 hours to reports of the leak. He said an attempt to plug or"kill" the well by injecting gas into it in had failed.

"We will not be commenting on these lawsuits in this proceeding,"Wyman told the panel, as residents behind him looked on with stonyexpressions.

They dispute that the chemicals are not harmful, claiming that theodorant methyl mercaptan is toxic. Mercaptans are stinky,irritating chemicals that are found, for example, in the defensivescent glands of skunks.

The residents say that benzene, a carcinogen, also has beendetected in the air.

Millions of cubic feet of methane have leaked from the well,according to court documents. The energy company has offeredtemporary relocation to thousands of Porter Ranch residents and2,500 households and two schools have been evacuated.

Speaking at the Saturday hearing, Los Angeles City CouncilmanMitch Englander said that about 12,000 people have been displacedby the leak.

While SoCalGas has responded to his constituents' complaints,Englander said, he's seen no emergency plan to address thedisaster.

"This is beyond gross negligence on behalf of SoCalGas," Englandersaid.

L.A. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, also a Republican,aimed his ire at regulators that he said should have done more toforesee the disaster, drawing some of the loudest whoops andcheers from the crowd.

According to Antonovich, regulators were put on notice that safetyvalves at the site were in a state of disrepair 37 years ago. Hesaid the ruptured well had gone into operation in 1954 and wasconverted into a gas storage well in 1973.

"Those pipes are 61 years old," Antonovich said.

SoCalGas had told state regulators in 1979 that it would replacethe safety valve but later reversed the decision because theproblem was not deemed "critical," Antonovich said.

"This is a critical problem. This is a mini-Chernobyl," Antonovichsaid.

Speaking after Antonovich, Assemblyman Scott Wilk called the gasleak California's "worst catastrophe" since the NorthridgeEarthquake in 1994.

SoCalGas attorney Wyman told the panel that SoCalGas had offeredto install purification systems in more than 3,000 households.The panel said that if it did not rule on the petition for anorder for abatement on Saturday, it would continue the courtlikeproceedings to another date.

Chairman and engineer Edward Camarena was joined on the panel byDr. Clifton Lee, attorney Julie Prussack, and public membersPatricia Byrd and David Holtzman.

Plaintiff purchased SunEdison stock and sustained substantiallosses when share prices dropped as a result of the company'sfailure to disclose substantial and material information about itscurrent financial condition.

SunEdison is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 13736Riverport Drive, Maryland Heights, Missouri 63043. It develops,manufactures, and sells silicon wafers and is a major developerand seller of photovoltaic energy solutions. Ahmad Chatila is thePresident and CEO while Brian Wuebbels is the Executive VicePresident, Chief Administration Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer.

Plaintiff alleges the Supercom of artificially inflating its shareprices and withholding material fiscal information from the SECand its shareholders about its true financial status. Share pricesdropped upon disclosure.

Arie Trabelsi is the President and CEO of SuperCom. TsviyaTrabelsi is the Chairperson of the Board of Directors. OrdanTrabelsi is the President of SuperCom of the Americas. BarakTrabelsi is Vice President, M2M Division. Simona Green was actingCFO of SuperCom.

TAKATA CORP: Judge Calls for Venue Transfer in Air Bag Case-----------------------------------------------------------Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports thatBMW's regular attendance at the Philadelphia Auto Show should notbe enough to keep a man's suit against the car company and Takataover allegedly defective air bags in Philadelphia, according to acommon pleas judge.

In December, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge EllenCeisler urged the state Superior Court to reject the appeal of herdecision to grant the defendants' preliminary objectionschallenging plaintiff Max Faust's chosen venue in the case. Herruling transferred the matter to the Lancaster County Court ofCommon Pleas.

Although Mr. Faust pointed to BMW's sales efforts withinPhiladelphia -- including its participation in the city's annualcar show -- as reasons why the case should be heard there,Ms. Ceisler said the contacts Faust pointed to fell "far short" ofsatisfying venue requirements.

"Even the fact that BMW N.A. regularly attends, and has a physicalpresence at, the annual Philadelphia Auto Show does not aidFaust's argument," Ms. Ceisler said. "In short, the mere factthat BMW N.A. lets people see their latest models, sit in thedriver's seat, and kick the tires a bit, does not transform suchenticement into a connection with Philadelphia County that wouldrender it a proper venue for this lawsuit."

According to Ms. Ceisler, Mr. Faust was a passenger in the frontof a BMW sedan in January 2014, when the car was involved in amultivehicle collision in Lancaster County. The BMW's air bagsdeployed during the crash, and allegedly caused "severe andserious injury" to Faust's right eye.

Mr. Faust then sued BMW, Takata, which manufactured the air bag,and Hanna Motors, which was the car dealership that sold thevehicle. He alleged breach of warranty, negligence, and strictliability, stemming from claims that the air bag system had beendefective.

The defendants filed preliminary objections arguing Philadelphiawas an improper venue, and the case should be heard in LancasterCounty. Mr. Faust replied that BMW conducted extensive targetedmarketing and promotional activities in Philadelphia, and had anetwork of dealerships selling to Philadelphia residents.

The defendants countered Faust had "twisted or misinterpretedevidence and deposition testimony" to try to defeat theirpreliminary objections.

After the parties conducted discovery in the matter, Mr. Faustreplied with information focusing on BMW's regular attendance atthe Philadelphia Auto Show, and pointed to testimony of employeesat a nonparty BMW dealership near Philadelphia as indicating BMWwas directly involved in the sales.

BMW noted it does not keep sales data by county, and maintainedthat it has no substantial contact with sales in Philadelphia.Ms. Ceisler sustained the preliminary objections to transfer thecase in October, and Mr. Faust appealed. In her opinion to theSuperior Court, Ms. Ceisler said none of the contacts Mr. Faustidentified "amount to anything more than solicitation, rather thanbusiness conduct sufficient to make Philadelphia a proper venue."

Ms. Ceisler noted that BMW's primary business purpose is to sellor lease its vehicles through independently-owned BMW dealerships,but these contacts, she said, would need to directly further thecompany's objective.

She added that, although there are some BMW dealerships that havedefined sales areas within Philadelphia, she noted that Ms. Faustdid not allege or provide evidence that these sales wereconsummated within the city.

Mr. Faust, Ms. Ceisler said, "made much ado" about the fact thatBMW's participation in the auto show resulted in sales, but thisclaim, she said, ignored the fact that BMW is prohibited fromdirectly selling its vehicles to end users.

"The slender reed upon which Faust has placed the entire weight ofhis venue argument is the notion that BMW N.A. regularly conductsbusiness in Philadelphia County, which, if true, would mean thatthis court erred granting the aforementioned preliminaryobjections," Ms. Ceisler said. "The only manner in which BMWN.A.'s presence at the Philadelphia Auto Show could have resultedin BMW sales or leases was for individuals to take an additionalstep, by acting upon the interest sparked at the show andtransacting with one of BMW N.A.'s dealerships."

John Zervanos of Soloff & Zervanos, who is representing Mr. Faust,said he believes BMW has yet to turn over some data that he saidwill show a direct connection between BMW and sales effortsfocused on Philadelphia.

The Collin County Commissioners Court approved the payments oneweek after presiding Tarrant County District Judge GeorgeGallagher approved the $300 per hour rate the prosecutorsnegotiated last year and ordered the county to pay.

Collin County Judge Keith Self questioned the need for theexpensive "gold-plated justice," the Dallas Morning News reported.Self said the county has "little discretion" over the judge'sorder and urged the special prosecutors -- private attorneys KentSchaffer, Brian Wice and Nicole DeBorde -- to resign, so a nearbydistrict attorney's office can be appointed to take over. Thereplacement prosecutors would then draw their normal salaries.Dallas County District Attorney Susan Hawk had declined toinvestigate Paxton before he was indicted in Collin County.

The vote came two weeks after a proposed class action was filedagainst Gallagher, the commissioners court and county Auditor JeffMay. That lawsuit, in Collin County Court, claims the specialprosecutors seek " expenditure of public funds that wouldunlawfully serve to enrich private attorneys at the expense oftaxpayers in Collin County. It claims the special prosecutors arelimited to what court-appointed attorneys for the indigent arepaid under the Texas Fair Defense Act.

"Defendant Judge Gallagher has discretion to adjust the payment inan amount not to exceed $1,000.00, but that payment is a '[per]case adjustment' and cannot occur until disposition of the case,"plaintiff Jeffory Blackard said in the complaint. "For thesereasons, the payment sought by the Attorneys Pro Tem violatesLocal Rule 4.01 and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Sections 2.07 and 26.05.It seeks an illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds."

A Collin County grand jury in August 2015 charged Paxton with twofirst-degree felony counts of securities fraud and a third-degreefelony count of failing to register with the Texas StateSecurities Board. If convicted of all charges, he could besentenced to up to life in prison.'

Paxton is accused of fraudulently selling more than $100,000 inServergy stock to two investors in July 2011 without disclosingthat he would be paid commissions on it. He also failed todisclose that he had been given 100,000 shares in the company buthad not invested in the company himself, according to theindictment.

Judge Gallagher denied 10 dismissal motions from Paxton's defenseattorneys in December, paving the way for trial. He was notpersuaded by arguments that the charges are unconstitutionallyvague or that state District Judge Chris Oldner improperlyimpaneled the grand jury before recusing himself. Paxton hasappealed.

Uber guaranteed its drivers rates of $26 during peak hours and $20during regular hours, and the only requirements were that theyaccept 90 percent of trips, average at least one trip per hour andbe online for 50 minutes of every hour worked, Berger says in thecomplaint.

Berger says Uber did not pay its drivers as promised, nor did itprovide a clear expectation of how the guarantee worked.

Based on the promotional email, she says, drivers were led tobelieve that as long as they followed the requirements, they wouldbe guaranteed the advertised rates.

But "Uber did not disclose that the hourly guarantee would becalculated based on a weekly, or per pay period, gross average allhours worked by Uber drivers, and not on an hourly basis aspromised in the Uber 'Winter Warmup' guarantee promotion," Bergersays in the complaint.

Since the hourly guarantee reflected an average gross hourly ratebefore Uber fees were subtracted, she said, drivers were paidhourly rates up to 40 percent less than advertised.

She seeks class certification, an injunction, damages, waitingtime penalties, and costs and fees.

Her attorney, Christopher Hamner, of Los Angeles, did notimmediately respond to an email requesting comment on Thursdayafternoon.

Uber attorney Debra Bernard made her case to U.S. District JudgeJon Tigar during a Thursday hearing, arguing that potentialchanges to the law could force the judge to revisit issues thatwill soon be decided in the two lawsuits.

Kristen Sagafi, attorney for the Lathrop plaintiffs, said waitingfor two higher courts to rule on the appeals would unreasonablydelay justice. She said many issues raised in those appeals areirrelevant to the case at hand.

Tigar denied Uber's motion to stay, finding any hardships Ubermight suffer in having to produce additional discovery because ofthe appeals do not justify staying the cases.

The two appeals in question are before the D.C. Circuit and U.S.Supreme Court.

In Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court must decide whetherplaintiffs who suffer no concrete injury have standing to sue.

Whether people that received unwanted text messages without beingcharged for them qualify for Article III standing is an issuecentral to both lawsuits, Bernard told the judge.

Sagafi countered that Spokeo would have no bearing on her clients'case because the plaintiffs do allege a concrete injury stemmingfrom the unwanted texts.

With the advent of unlimited call and texting plans, gettingcharged for calls and messages has become less common, Bernardargued. She said the law requires that plaintiffs allege aconcrete injury, such as an added phone charge, to establishstanding.

"Do you think your time has an opportunity cost?" Tigar asked,suggesting that a nonmonetary injury could also be established.

"In a world where there's no penalty for sending text messages,how many would you receive?" Tigar asked.

Bernard responded that statutory fines of $500 to $1,500 forviolating the law exist, but that doesn't mean plaintiffs shouldbe able to sue in Federal Court or bring class actions if they didnot suffer concrete harm.

The ruling clarified definitions of "automatic telephone dialingsystem" and "called party," along with what qualifies as"revocation of consent."

The meaning of automatic dialing system was changed to encompass asystem's present and potential capacity, a move that Uber andother interested companies strongly disagree with.

"If your honor determines we have to go forward in this casebecause the way the text messages are sent constitute an[automatic dialing system], then the D.C. Circuit disagrees withthat, then we go forward with class certification finding theoutcome has to be revisited," Bernard said.

In its ruling, the FCC decided that a "called party" can be eitherthe subscriber of a phone number or the nonsubscribing customaryuser of that number.

Bernard said that issue directly affects one named plaintiff inthe Lathrop case, Julie McKinney , who sued Uber for receivingunsolicited text messages even though her husband allegedly signedup with Uber and had the phone in his name.

"He's the one that signed up," Bernard said. "Uber tried tocontact him, but she's the named plaintiff."

The FCC also adopted what Uber considers a broad interpretation of"revocation of consent," which the company says makes it tough topinpoint what terms and phrases signal a request to stop sendingmessages.

"It's a very nebulous standard that companies cannot live up to,"Bernard said of the "revocation of consent" definition. "Ifsomeone says, 'Please stop texting me' or 'I don't want to getthese anymore,' there are technological barriers for companies torecognize that."

She added that some named plaintiffs in both suits claim theytried to opt out from receiving messages by using terminology thecompany has no ability to recognize.

Adrian Bacon, representing the Kafatos plaintiffs, argued that no"seismic change" is being requested in the appeal before the D.C.Circuit, and that the issues in both lawsuits have been wellestablished through extensive litigation.

"The Supreme Court will probably ultimately have to weigh in onthis," Bacon said. "Somebody's going to appeal this thing, and itwill take a few years to work out. That's not a burden theplaintiffs should have to bear."

Turning to discovery issues, Tigar ordered Uber to submit to aJan. 20 deposition regarding its ability to pull data and producediscovery on its text logs, which the Lathrop plaintiffs say arecrucial to determine the scope of their proposed class and toidentify class members.

UBER TECH: Excluded Drivers Sue in San Francisco State Court------------------------------------------------------------Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported thatUber drivers who were excluded from a federal class action in 2015are now suing in state court in San Francisco to be treated likeemployees.

The 78 drivers named in the complaint claim Uber misclassifiesthem as independent contractors and requires them to pay for theirown gas and vehicle maintenance, along with other businessexpenses. They were excluded from the federal class certified lastyear by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen because they drove forUber through third-party transportation companies or drove underbusiness names.

At a hearing in November, lead plaintiff attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan told Chen that the excluded drivers would take theirclaims to state court.

"Their claims are not going away," she said. "They will beadjudicated. Would the court in its discretion prefer to keep themall within the same proceeding, or have them all flood the statecourt system? This whole litigation is going to be much lessmanageable than keeping them in this courtroom."

In an email on Jan. 6, Liss-Riordan said she expects "many morewill eventually be added."

The drivers seek restitution and reimbursement for their expenses.Lead plaintiff Thomas Colopy is also seeking civil penalties forlabor code violations under the Private Attorney General Act.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Revamps Drivers' Arbitration Agreements----------------------------------------------------------Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that ahigh-profile worker classification lawsuit against UberTechnologies Inc. in California has brought national attention tothe question of whether workers in the sharing economy are full-fledged employees or just contractors on a digital platform.

The issue is at the center of the class action case, O'Connor v.Uber, but it hasn't been the only one that matters as the casemakes its way through the courts.

The validity of the arbitration agreements that Uber asks driversto sign when they register to drive on Uber's platform has been amajor point of contention between the plaintiffs and the company.So far, the plaintiffs have been winning the argument, and Uberrecently revamped its drivers' arbitration agreements in whatlooks a lot like a direct response to its recent setbacks.

Uber already suffered a loss earlier in 2015 when Judge EdwardChen in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia ruled that a class of drivers could sue to get thebenefits and rights of W2 employees. The question remained as tohow large the class would be, with Uber arguing that since driverswho started in 2014 or after signed an arbitration agreement thatwaived their rights to take the company to court, the class shouldexclude these drivers.

Originally it seemed that Chen agreed with Uber, but he apparentlychanged his mind after new case law emerged in California underthe Private Attorney General Act, a state law that allows privatecitizens to pursue violations of California's Labor Code andcollect penalties (albeit usually small ones) from violators.Judge Chen ruled that Uber's arbitration agreement included anillegal waiver of drivers' rights under PAGA, and was thereforeinvalid. Now plaintiffs from 2014 and beyond are included in theclass action's numbers.

Uber, which has appealed this latest ruling, acted quickly,releasing a new arbitration agreement for drivers that includes acarve-out for PAGA claims just days after Judge Chen's ruling. Itseems unlikely that the new agreement could apply retroactively tothe class already certified, but releasing a new agreement in themiddle of litigation could still have influence on how classmembers perceive the case, according Adam Moskowitz --amm@kttlaw.com -- a partner at Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, whomanages the firm's class action practice.

"Clearly this isn't going to be enforced against the classmembers," he says. "But it does raise the issue of: 'is this anunsolicited communication to the certified class?' The court hasto address that." If the new policy affects the way class membersview the case, and prompts them to opt out of the class action, itcould be very consequential.

The lead plaintiffs attorney in the case, Shannon Liss-Riordan,has filed an emergency motion calling the new arbitrationagreement misleading and saying it has already created confusionfor drivers. It remains to be seen whether the motion will resultin any change, or whether Uber will be able to continuepromulgating the new policy. But either way, it does raise someinteresting issues.

One is the need to ensure that companies articulate the terms ofan arbitration agreement so that the person signing it actuallyknows what they are agreeing to. Some have expressed concern thatUber drivers might not understand the sort of "legalese" that thecompany is throwing at them with its updated agreement or be ableto figure out how to opt out from the reworked arbitrationagreement

While not commenting on Uber's policy specifically, Todd Lebowitz-- tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com -- a partner at Baker & Hostetler, saysthat drafting agreements that are still legally airtight whilealso as readable as possible for the average person isn't alwayseasy. "It's constantly a struggle for attorneys to draft anarbitration agreement that will be held up in court asenforceable," he says, "while at the same time not making it socomplicated and so convoluted that people can't understand it.It's a difficult path." If a company fails to do thiseffectively, Mr. Lebowitz adds, its contract may fall into thelegal trap of "procedural unconscionability."

Douglas Bohn -- dbohn@cullenanddykman.com -- a partner in thecommercial litigation department of Cullen and Dykman, emphasizesthat companies need to make sure the person signing the agreementunderstands what the procedures are going to be for resolving adispute and knows that they have waived the right to take theissue to court. "As long as the parties know what they areagreeing to, that's always the key," he says. If done right, Bohnexplains, mandatory arbitration can often provide valuable savingsin costs and time.

For now, says Todd Scherwin -- tscherwin@laborlawyers.com --regional managing partner at Fisher & Phillips' Los Angelesoffice, it makes a lot of sense for Uber to fight tooth and nailto shrink the class as much as possible, since a loss would likelyupend the company's contractor-based business model.

But that means it'll probably be awhile before courts can get pastthe arbitration issue and make it to the major employment lawquestions. "You may be looking at months, if not years or longerbefore any decisions on the merits are actually reached,"Mr. Scherwin says.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Drivers' Case Tried Without Jury---------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that aftersecuring a pair of favorable rulings -- and in the face of asupercharged media campaign launched by Uber -- plaintiffschallenging the company's business model are seeking to put ontheir case without a jury.

Plaintiffs lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who won classcertification for drivers suing over their status as independentcontractors and then got the class significantly expanded, movedon Dec. 17 to dismiss an expense-reimbursement claim in an effortto proceed to a bench trial. The proposal, subject of a hearingbefore U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, drew a vigorous objectionfrom Uber Technologies Inc. lawyer Theodore Boutrous of Gibson,Dunn & Crutcher.

"Plaintiffs counsel is afraid of a jury trial here in the NorthernDistrict," Mr. Boutrous said, adding that assertions that a jurycould not be fair minded are "ridiculous" and "outrageous."

Uber was also playing defense at the hearing over the rollout of anew driver arbitration agreement, a contract Judge Chen said"raises grave concerns." Liss-Riordan filed an emergency motion toblock enforcement of the agreement, which Uber recently unveiled.Uber previously said the company wouldn't enforce the agreementagainst drivers who are already part of Ms. Liss-Riordan'scertified class.

Despite his concerns, Judge Chen said he was unsure if he had theauthority to halt the agreement from taking effect. Instead, hesaid he would issue an order confirming that the new agreementcannot be enforced against members of the certified class. Healso directed Uber to refrain from communicating with classmembers "with respect to anything that might affect theprosecution of the case." Jduge Chen put off deciding on whetherthere needs to be additional protection for plaintiffs in theseveral other cases filed against the company.

The plaintiffs' bid to forgo a jury comes after Judge Chen allowedplaintiffs to pursue classwide reimbursement for driving expensesunder the California Labor Code. After that ruling, Ms.Liss-Riordan asked Judge Chen to rule on that issue underCalifornia's Unfair Competition Law, which she says does notinclude a right to jury trial.

"A bench trial will assure that there are clear factual findingsand conclusions in the record and can more easily allow for anappeal of any adverse decisions in a way that would be moredifficult in a jury trial," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in the motionfiled just before the hearing.

She added that Uber's press push, including the company'spublicizing of hundreds of declarations by drivers who say theylike being independent contractors, may have prejudiced potentialjurors.

"This is simply another attempt we are making to obtain a benchtrial. It may work and it may not," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in anemail after the hearing. "But either way, I am not afraid of ajury. We are only saying that this legal issue [of worker status]is properly decided by a court because there really aren't factualdisputes in this case -- the issue is simply how the law appliesto this fact situation."

Judge Chen put off ruling but expressed concerns. "Manageable ornot, there is a right to a jury trial," he said. "You cannotunilaterally withdraw the right to a jury trial."

UNION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Principal Sues Over Hidden Camera---------------------------------------------------------------Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that aformer high school principal in South Carolina claims in court hewas forced to resign from his job after learning the districtsuperintendent installed a hidden camera his office and had filmedhim changing for his daily workout.

In a complaint filed in Union County, S.C., plaintiff Floyd Lyles,Jr. says until he had a falling out with defendant Dr. KristiWoodall, superintendent for the Union County School District, hiscareer had been marked by success -- and one promotion -- afteranother.

Initially hired as a math teacher in 1998, by 2004 he had beennamed assistant principal at the Union County High School, andover the next eight years he advanced to a number of otheradministrative positions at other schools in the district beforereturning to the high school to serve as its principal.

But Lyles claims his relationship with the district soured afterhe asked for a raise prior to the 2013-2014 school year.

Lyles says in making his request, he pointed out that he had takena poor performing school and turned it around, the result being"significant improvement in classroom scores and staff morale."

"Defendant showed outright animus towards Plaintiff telling him heshould be satisfied with the raise he got at the time of his 2012promotion," the complaint says.

Unsatisfied with that response, and believing he was being treateddifferently from other principals and administrators who he knewhad received merit raises from time to time, Lyles renewed hisquest for a raise, and again saw his request denied.

Lyles says he received "no explanation as to why he had beendenied a raise. Defendant's actions were hostile and exhibitedoutright indifference towards Plaintiff."

Specifically he claims the disagreement over salary placed him inthe crosshairs of district Superintendent Dr. Kristi Woodall, whohe says retaliated against him by taking away one of the assistantprincipal positions in his school and moving it to the district'smuch smaller career center.

Other disputes followed.

Lyles says the matters came to a head on March 10, 2015, afterwhat he describes as months of harassment by the defendants, whenhe was confronted by Woodall who informed him that a hidden camerahad been placed in his office and that he' been caught on tapeengaging in "improper behavior."

He says he was shocked by this revelation because Woodall knew andcondoned his using his office to change clothes before and afterhis twice-a-day workouts. The next day, he says, Woodall gave himthe option to resign or else face an investigation of his allegedimproper behavior.

"Plaintiff knew that he had done nothing improper during theperformance of his job on tape or off tape, Dr. Woodall had beenspying on him and invading his privacy while he changed clothes inhis office which caused Plaintiff a great deal of embarrassment,mental anguish, and humiliation," the complaint says.

As a result, "Plaintiff felt he had no option other than toresign," it continues.

Representatives of the school district did not immediately respondto an emailed requested for comment from Courthouse News.

UNITED COLLECTION: Court Rejects Class Deal Favoring One Plaintiff------------------------------------------------------------------Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that amagistrate judge scuttled a class action settlement against a debtcollector, faulting an arrangement that paid no class membersexcept the named plaintiff and instead made a payment to aconsumer advocacy group.

Coupled with other deficiencies in the approximately $465,000pact -- such as a "sweeping increase" in class size and a broadliability release-- Brown said "the limitation of the settlement toa cy pres payment representing no measurable benefit to classmembers renders the settlement fundamentally unfair, unreasonableand inadequate."

Brown noted his Jan. 6 denial was made without prejudice.The suit challenged United Collection Bureau's debt collectionefforts. According to the complaint, the company left messages forthe named plaintiff, Thomas Graff, but breached the Fair DebtCollection Practices Act by not identifying itself as a debtcollector seeking to recover a sum due.

The suit noted earlier litigation against United Collection Bureauon the same practice, Gravina v. United Collection Bureau, 09-cv-04816. Gravina ended with a payment of more than $120,000 to noclass members except the named plaintiffs and cy pres paymentstotalling about $26,500 to the Make-A-Wish Foundation and theWestern Center on Law & Poverty.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the cy pres doctrine in classaction litigation distributes "unclaimed portions of a judgment orsettlement fund to a charity that will advance the interests ofthe class."

In the current case, Graff and United Collection Bureau consentedto Brown's jurisdiction, and he granted preliminary approval ofthe class settlement in 2014.

The pact would have awarded $2,500 to Graff and about $40,000 tothe National Consumer Law Center, which would amount to roughly 7cents for each of the 568,023 potential class members.

The pact also would have awarded $175,000 in legal fees and up to$250,000 in administration and notice costs.

Leading up to the May 2015 fairness hearing, one objecting classmember, Bradley Good, challenged the settlement.

Good, through his attorneys, said the appropriateness of a cy presaward depended on a case's circumstances. Here, he said, "wherethe recovery is de minimis only because of the excessively broadclass definition constructed by the parties, a no-cash, all cypres settlement yields a result that is neither fair nor adequateto the class in exchange for the rights surrendered."

In his decision, Brown noted there were "several factors weighingin favor of the settlement." For example, the judge said the classreaction appeared positive; only 66 opted out and one personobjected.

Still, Brown noted Good's arguments that the release fromliability could mean that potential damages for claims under otherlaws, such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, would not beavailable.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, Andrew Thomasson, of Thomasson Law inJersey City, and Abraham Kleinman of Kleinman LLC in Uniondale,said the releases were routine and proper.

Brown said the problem was the Fair Debt Collection PracticesAct's limit of settlement to 1 percent of the gross revenue of thedefendant. He said such a limit was not present in otherapplicable laws, like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

"Can the liability limitations of the [Fair Debt CollectionPractices Act] be used as both a shield and a sword? Whileplaintiffs contend that a release of this nature is commonpractice, there is little precedent to support granting a broadrelease in these circumstances," he said.

Brown also said that when the action started, it was done onbehalf of a New York class but later expanded to cover anationwide class. He said one of the consequences was"dramatically decreas[ing] the value assigned to each class actionplaintiff while broadly increasing the protection afforded todefendant."

As a result, he only granted final certification to the New Yorkclass.

Turning to the issue of the cy pres payment, Brown acknowledgedthe doctrine had a "well-developed history," especially for theresolution of excess or unclaimed funds.

What was less clear, he said, was the power of courts to approvethe type of accord in front of him where, apart from the namedplaintiff, class member payments were "entirely supplanted bypayment to a cy pres recipient."

The judge said there was "some support" in the dicta of one 2007decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,but he could not find one Second Circuit case authorizing the cypres award as the "exclusive remedy for the class."

He said some courts have approved exclusive cy pres award in classactions, but others have not, noting a Seventh Circuit rejectionof a largely cy pres class action settlement.

The 2004 circuit decision said cy pres awards in the class actioncontext were meant to stop defendants from "walking away from thelitigation scot-free" because funds could not otherwise bedistributed. Still, the circuit said there was "no indirectbenefit to the class from the defendant's giving the money tosomeone else."

Ariana Lindermayer, a senior staff attorney in MFY Legal Services'consumer rights project, was one of the attorneys representing theobjector.

Lindermayer applauded the decision, saying it "really reflectedthe important gate keeping role courts play in reviewing classactions." Here, she said, there was "extremely broad relief," butclass members got "nothing practically in exchange for it."Scott Michelman and Allison Zieve of Public Citizen LitigationGroup, and Cary Flitter of Flitter Lorenz in Pennsylvania alsorepresented Good.

UTZ QUALITY: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Wage Law Violation----------------------------------------------------------George Cummings, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc. and Dylan Lisseite, Case no:15-6595 (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, December 2, 2015) allegesthat Defendants have misclassified the Plaintiff as an independentcontractor and was thus denied various rights under the wage laws,including the right to minimum wages and the right to receive allwages due without unlawful deductions.

Utz is in the business of manufacturing certain brands of snackfoods to stores throughout the country, including inMassachusetts.

Contoured to fit the shape of the foot with glovelike appendagesfor the toes, the shoes are made with a thin Vibram patented sole.

Consumers took to court, however, with claims that the shoesfailed to perform as advertised.

"Defendants' health benefit claims are false and deceptive becauseFiveFingers are not proven to provide any of the health benefitsbeyond what conventional running shoes provide," a 31-page federalcomplaint alleged.

In addition to questioning the scientific evidence in support ofFiveFingers, the class claimed that the so-called barefoot shoescould actually increase the risk of injury.

A University of Wisconsin study found that runners often have tochange their gait when switching to FiveFingers running shoes, andthat adapting to the shoes may involve an "injury-fraughtregimen," the complaint alleged.

After extensive written discovery, but before the plaintiffs couldmove for class certification, the parties to the Massachusettsaction reached a settlement.

The agreement established a $3.75 million fund to provide consumerclaimants with an expected average refund of $20 to $50 per pairof shoes.

These estimates took a hit, however, when the fund received ahigher-than expected number of claims -- 154,927 claims for279,570 pairs of FiveFingers shoes.

The high number of claims resulted in a far lower estimated refundfor consumers -- approximately $8.44 per pair of shoes.

Three objectors challenged the settlement, but a federal judgeaffirmed the deal despite the disparity between the estimated andactual refund for potential class members.

The First Circuit affirmed Dec. 31 from Boston.

"Contrary to the objectors' claims, there was no misrepresentationin the notices sent to class members," Judge Sandra Lynch wrotefor the three-judge panel. "The summary settlement notice and thepostcard notice both contained explicit language that recoverycould 'decrease depending on various factors, including the numberof valid claims.' Although the class notice did not contain suchlanguage, it did not misrepresent the situation."

Given the uncertainty of success at trial -- especially with aclass-certification battle still to go -- the lower courtreasonably decided that $8.44 per pair of shoes was a fair refund,the panel said.

"The fact that a better deal for class members is imaginable doesnot mean that such a deal would have been attainable in thesenegotiations, or that the deal that was actually obtained is notwithin the range of reasonable outcomes," Lynch concluded.

The panel also affirmed the terms of the agreement providing thatclass counsel may apply for fees that do not exceed 25 percent ofthe settlement fund.

A copy of the First Circuit's Dec. 31 decision is available athttp://is.gd/lJ4rHTfrom Leagle.com.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: US Files Suit Over Emissions-Cheating Software----------------------------------------------------------------Michael Biesecker and Eric Tucker, writing for The AssociatedPress, report that the Justice Department sued Volkswagen onJan. 4 over emissions-cheating software found in nearly 600,000vehicles sold in the United States, potentially exposing thecompany to billions of dollars in penalties for clean airviolations.

The civil complaint against the German automaker, filed on behalfof the Environmental Protection Agency in U.S. District Court inDetroit, alleges the company illegally installed software designedto make its "clean diesel" engines pass federal emissionsstandards while undergoing laboratory testing. The vehicles thenswitched off those measures in real-world driving conditions,spewing harmful gases at up to 40 times what is allowed underfederal environmental standards.

"Car manufacturers that fail to properly certify their cars andthat defeat emission control systems breach the public trust,endanger public health and disadvantage competitors," John C.Cruden, the assistant attorney general for the JusticeDepartment's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in astatement.

"The United States will pursue all appropriate remedies againstVolkswagen to redress the violations of our nation's clean airlaws alleged in the complaint," he said.

The company is in the midst of negotiating a massive mandatoryrecall with U.S. regulators and potentially faces more than $18billion in fines for violations of the federal Clean Air Act.

The company and its executives could also still face separatecriminal charges, while a raft of private class-action lawsuitsfiled by angry VW owners are pending.

Volkswagen Group of America spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan said onJan. 4 that the company "will continue to cooperate with allgovernment agencies investigating these matters."

In past statements, high-ranking VW executives have sought toblame only a small number of software developers in Germany forthe suspect computer code designed to trick emissions tests. Thecompany has hired a U.S.-based law firm to conduct an internalinvestigation into the scheme. The findings of that review havenot yet been made public.

The company first acknowledged in September that the cheatingsoftware was included in its diesel cars and SUVs sold since the2009 model year, as well as some recent diesel models sold by theVW-owned Audi and Porsche brands. Worldwide, the company sayscheating software was included in more than 11 million vehicles.

The federal lawsuit alleges that Volkswagen intentionally tamperedwith the vehicles sold in the U.S. to include what regulators calla "defeat device," a mechanism specifically designed to gameemissions tests. Under the law, automakers are required todisclose any such devices to regulators.

Because Volkswagen kept its suspect software secret, the lawsuitalleges the company's cars were sold without a valid "certificateof conformity" issued by EPA to regulate new cars manufactured orimported into the country.

In addition to producing far more pollution than allowed, expertssay the excess nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions from themore than half-million VW vehicles had a human cost. Astatistical and computer analysis by the Associated Pressestimated the extra pollution caused somewhere between 16 and 94deaths over the last seven years, with the annual toll increasingas more of the diesels were on the road.

"With the filing, we take an important step to protect publichealth by seeking to hold Volkswagen accountable for any unlawfulair pollution, setting us on a path to resolution," said AssistantAdministrator Cynthia Giles for EPA's Office of Enforcement andCompliance Assurance. "So far, recall discussions with thecompany have not produced an acceptable way forward. Thesediscussions will continue in parallel with the federal courtaction."

Justice Department officials said on Jan. 4 the case was filed inthe Eastern District of Michigan because that is where"significant activity" related to the company's cheating schemeoccurred. EPA's primary emissions-testing lab is located inAnn Arbor and Volkswagen also has facilities in the Detroit metroarea.

However, as the legal case proceeds, the venue is expected to moveto Northern California, where hundreds of the class-action caseshave been consolidated and state regulators played a key role inuncovering VW's deceptions.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Retains Feinberg to Administer Emissions Claims-----------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat Volkswagen A.G. has retained Kenneth Feinberg to administer aclaims program designed to compensate consumers for lost value totheir vehicles and other economic damages caused from its recentemissions scandal.

In a conference call with reporters on Dec. 17, Mr. Feinberg,managing partner of The Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg inWashington, gave scant details about the program other than to sayhe would be accepting an estimated 500,000 claims from owners ofdiesel vehicles.

The move comes as more than 500 class actions against Volkswagenwere coordinated in December before U.S. District Judge CharlesBreyer of the Northern District of California, with an initialhearing set for Dec. 22.

Mr. Feinberg said Volkswagen reached out to him to set up theprogram "in an effort to divert those claims out of the courtsystem and into a claims program that will provide remedies tothose automobile owners."

It's an abrupt turn of events for Volkswagen, which in Septemberadmitted that 11 million cars and trucks have a "defeat device" inthem designed to cheat emissions tests, including 482,000 in theUnited States. On Dec. 17, Michael Horn, president and CEO ofVolkswagen Group of America, said in a prepared statement: "We arepleased to announce the retention of Kenneth Feinberg. Hisextensive experience in handling such complex matters will help toguide us as we move forward to make things right with ourcustomers."

Mr. Feinberg, who is wrapping up a similar compensation programover General Motors Co.'s ignition-switch recalls, emphasized thatthe program was voluntary and has no estimated cost so far. Hesaid that although he would be meeting with regulators,Volkswagen's program was separate from those efforts to fix thecars.

Plaintiffs lawyers had mixed reactions to the news.Frank Pitre of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame,California, said the announcement appeared to be an attempt byVolkswagen to appease its customers after November's $1,000goodwill payment program failed.

"It appears to me they're taking a page out of GM," he said."Volkswagen's first foray into a public relations venture intrying to get the goodwill back with the consumers -- that was ablack eye. I don't think it sold very well -- 25 percent of thepeople actually took it. So they've got to do something."

Like GM, Volkswagen would not interfere with Mr. Feinberg'sdecisions in determining the value of individual claims,Mr. Feinberg said.

Mr. Feinberg said that in the coming months he would be meetingwith Volkswagen officials, car owners and their lawyers todetermine which models should be included and what types ofremedies could be available, such as buying back vehicles orcompensating for lost gas mileage that could result from fixingthe cars.

"What the remedies will be -- and there may be a menu of remediesdepending on the car owner and vehicle -- what the cost of theprogram will be, how long it will take for this program to acceptclaims, remains to be seen," he said. "We have to wait and seewhat those legal remedies will be that attract people out of thecourt system and voluntarily encourage them to go this routeinstead of the courtroom."

Mr. Feinberg acknowledged that, like GM and the other victim-compensation funds, it was fair to assume that those whoparticipate in the program would waive their rights to sue.The suits that have been filed allege consumers were duped intopaying premium prices for "clean diesel" cars that the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency has said emit as much as 40 timesthe standard for nitrogen oxides.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Plaintiffs Must Suggest Settlement Master-----------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat Volkswagen A.G.'s legal problems tied to its emissionsscandal could be over before they've hardly begun.

In one of his first orders, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer hasasked plaintiffs lawyers suing Volkswagen to suggest the bestperson to oversee settlement of more than 500 class actions.

The selection of a special settlement master is not uncommon, butit usually takes place much later in the course of litigation.Many plaintiffs lawyers have predicted that Volkswagen couldquickly settle the litigation, having already admitted that 11million cars and trucks have a "defeat device" in them designed tocheat emissions tests, including 482,000 in the United States.

Then, on Dec. 17, Volkswagen announced that it had hired famedclaims administrator Kenneth Feinberg to set up a compensationfund for an estimated 500,000 diesel-car owners. Mr. Feinberg,managing partner of The Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg inWashington, gave few details about the program, including when itwould begin accepting claims. Volkswagen reached out to him toset up the program "in an effort to divert those claims out of thecourt system and into a claims program that will provide remediesto those automobile owners," he said.

Volkswagen's move could put a dent in the plans of plaintiffslawyers, who have clamored in December over their favorite picksfor settlement master.

"I don't know how they'll play it," Frank Pitre of Cotchett, Pitre& McCarthy in Burlingame, California, said of Volkswagen. Hisfirm supports three mediators in San Francisco as potentialsettlement masters. "Now we have Feinberg who will be involved insome kind of consumer goodwill package they'll offer to peopleand, therefore, if he's doing that, wouldn't it be nice if he alsowas involved as a special master with all the settlement of theclass action claims?"Feinberg is among the 18 names plaintiffslawyers have suggested for settlement master.

"It might enhance his curriculum vitae to get the appointment," hesaid. "It makes no sense to have two settlement masters."But not everyone agrees.

Elizabeth Cabraser, a partner at San Francisco's Lieff CabraserHeimann & Bernstein, said in a Dec. 17 court filing that "whileMr. Feinberg's retention is a meaningful development, and acommendable action by Volkswagen, this alone does not guarantee afair, adequate, reasonable and comprehensive settlement."

Judge Breyer, of California's Northern District, didn't give anyreasons behind his Dec. 9 pretrial order asking for settlementmaster selections. He asked lawyers to submit names by Dec. 22 --the date of the first hearing in the litigation. Consumers allegethey were duped into paying premium prices for "clean diesel" carsthat the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said emit asmuch as 40 times the standard for nitrogen oxides.

Some lawyers suggested that Judge Breyer should appoint more thanone settlement master, particularly after Volkswagen'sannouncement about Feinberg, while others have said that one wasenough. The most popular name was retired U.S. District JudgeLayn Phillips, who was appointed in October by both Gerald Rosen,chief judge of the Eastern District of Michigan, and U.S. DistrictJudge Jose Linares of New Jersey to oversee preliminary settlementdiscussions. Those talks went nowhere, but plaintiffs lawyersinvolved in those efforts submitted Phillips as a candidate onDec. 14.

Judge Phillips, of Phillips ADR in Newport Beach, California, is aformer federal prosecutor who was U.S. attorney for the NorthernDistrict of Oklahoma and a federal judge for the Western Districtof Oklahoma. John Perry, who was appointed on Dec. 11 as aspecial master to oversee General Motors Co.'s settlement of 1,380personal injury and wrongful-death lawsuits tied to its ignition-switch recalls in 2014, also is a lead candidate. He is a partnerat the law firm Perry, Atkinson, Balhoff, Mengis, Burns & Ellisand founding principal of mediation firm Perry Dampf DisputeSolutions, both in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.Many are looking closerto home, suggesting JAMS mediators in San Francisco. Among themost popular was Edward Infante, who was chief magistrate judge ofCalifornia's Northern District from 1990 to 2001, and RebeccaWesterfield, a former Jefferson County Circuit Court judge inKentucky with experience in dealing with international matters.

"This is a somewhat unique litigation where there probably aregoing to be these constant parallel settlement discussion whilelitigation is proceeding," said Shon Morgan, chairman of thenational class action practice group at Los Angeles-based QuinnEmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

Whirlpool Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principalplace of business at 2000 N. M-63 Benton Harbor, Michigan.KitchenAid is an Ohio Corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiaryof the Whirlpool Corporation. It maintains its principal place ofbusiness at 553 Benson Road, Benton Harbor, Michigan. KitchenAidis incorporated in Ohio.

There's no evidence that Yahoo directors failed to conduct duediligence with regard to the 2011 divestiture of Alipay, ruledU.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District ofCalifornia. Judge Breyer granted Yahoo's motion to dismiss in itsentirety, without giving plaintiffs leave to amend.

Investors claimed that Yahoo directors should have stepped in andvetoed the transaction when they realized the deal valued Alipayat far less than the company was worth.

At the time, analysts valued Alipay at $5 billion to $16 billion.But Yahoo, which acquired roughly 40 percent of Alibaba GroupHolding Ltd. in 2005, was in a bind after the Chinese governmentmade it more difficult for foreign entities to own nonbank paymentcompanies such as Alipay.

According to plaintiffs lawyers, Alibaba founder Jack Ma used the2010 regulations as a pretext to assume ownership of Alipay andYahoo's directors ignored signs that Alipay would bemisappropriated.

Judge Breyer said those charges relied on the benefit ofhindsight.

"Plaintiffs do not point to any particularized allegations showingthat any of the Yahoo directors, let alone a majority, 'knew thatthey were not discharging their fiduciary obligations,'" JudgeBreyer wrote. "In other words, plaintiffs fail to establish thatthe directors acted in 'bad faith.' "

Judge Breyer found plaintiffs did not clear the presuit demandrequired of shareholders prior to commencing a derivativeproceeding. He shot down their argument that they were exemptbecause the board was involved in the breach of duty.

"Plaintiffs' argument is based on an alleged inaction -- that thedirectors failed to obtain 'adequate consideration' for Alipay,"Judge Breyer wrote, "but a claim for waste must be predicated onan affirmative board decision."

Plaintiffs also lost a securities class action filed against Yahooover similar allegations. Judge Breyer rejected plaintiffs'argument that Yahoo had a duty to correct Alibaba-relatedstatements made in 2010 and 2011. The U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit affirmed in May.

YUKOS OIL: May 30 Claims Filing Deadline Set--------------------------------------------TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED, ACQUIRED OR HELD SECURITIES OFYUKOS OIL COMPANY "YUKOS" BETWEEN JULY 2, 2003 AND NOVEMBER 28,2007

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that if you purchased, acquired or heldYukos Ordinary Shares or Yukos ADRs from July 2, 2003 through andincluding November 28, 2007, you may be eligible to receive adistribution from the assets of Yukos. If you have not received adetailed Notice and copy of the Claim Form, you may obtain copiesof these documents by contacting the Yukos Distribution Agent orvisiting its website:

If you are a former Yukos shareholder, in order to be eligible toparticipate in the distribution, your Claim Form must be receivedby the Distribution Agent by May 30, 2016, establishing that youare entitled to recovery.

If you have questions about the Yukos Claims Administration, youmay contact the Distribution Agent.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT YUKOS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ALL QUESTIONSABOUT THIS NOTICE OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE A DISTRIBUTIONSHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE DISTRIBUTION AGENT USING THE CONTACTINFORMATION LISTED ABOVE.

* Experian Announces Data Breach Predictions for 2016-----------------------------------------------------Judy A. Selby, writing for Legaltech News, reports that Experianhas once again looked into its crystal ball and announced its databreach predictions for 2016. In its third annual Data BreachIndustry Forecast, Experian makes five sobering predictions basedon recent events and new and emerging trends. The upshot of theforecast is that today's enterprises must remain more vigilantthan ever and should update their data breach response plans inlight of the evolving threat landscape.

Prediction 1: The EMV Chip and PIN Liability Shift Will Not StopPayment Breaches

Experian predicts that the Oct. 1, 2015 liability shift for U.S.vendors to adopt EMV chip and PIN compatible payment terminalswill not turn out to be a silver bullet against payment breaches.Noting research indicating that 86 percent of small businesseshave not yet invested in Chip and PIN technology and that gasstations and independent ATM networks need more time to adopt thesystem, Experian said "it's possible we could see the cost ofbreaches to these types of organizations increase in the comingyear." In addition, unknown vulnerabilities in the new Chip andPIN technology as well as implementation errors might be ripe forexploitation. It also is likely that attackers will now shifttheir focus to online "card not present" transactions, leading toan increase in attacks on e-commerce sites.

Prediction 2: Big Healthcare Hacks Will Make Headlines but SmallBreaches Will Cause the Most Damage

The high black market value of compromised healthcare data willdrive targeted attacks on healthcare companies. The move toelectronic health records (EHRs) and the increased use of mobileapplications to access EHRs are increasing the attack surface forhealthcare data, and the enrollment of more people into healthinsurance systems due to the Affordable Care Act has lead to thecreation of more data to steal. Experian states that although"large breaches may be compromising millions of people's recordsin one fell swoop, smaller incidents caused by employee negligencewill also continue to compromise millions of records each year."

Michael Bruemmer, vice president of Experian Data BreachResolution noted that "data breaches at smaller, regionalhealthcare organizations are often caused by employees mishandlingpaper records or losing physical back-ups of information. Thegood news is that issues like this can be addressed throughregular security training. It's important that healthorganizations not only continue to invest in current securitytechnologies, but also focus on ensuring employees are up to speedon proper data handling practices."

Prediction 3: Cyber Conflicts Between Countries Will DamageConsumers and Businesses

Experian predicts that "[a]s nation-states continue to move theirconflicts and espionage efforts to the digital world, we arelikely to see more incidents aimed at stealing corporate andgovernment secrets or disrupting military operations."Mr. Bruemmer anticipates that "consumers will be caught in thecross-hairs" if there are large public and/or private sector databreaches caused by nation-states resulting in the exposure ofmillions of personal records.

He urges companies involved in critical infrastructure orpotentially sensitive political information to invest in advancedthreat protection, and consumers to take advantage of freeidentity theft protection services offered after a known databreach and to proactively monitor all their accounts forsuspicious activity.

Candidates beware. Experian believes that the potential for apolitically-motivated attack is significant, and that it is"likely that one of the presidential candidates, their campaignsand/or a major donor base will be hacked."

Experian noted a report that 64 percent of registered votersbelieve that a presidential campaign will suffer a cybersecurityincident, and warns that exposure of donor information andsensitive campaign information could cause disruption andreputational damage.

Prediction 5: Hactivism Will Make a Comeback

Financial gain is not the only objective of cyberattacks.Experian predicts that attacks designed to cause reputationaldamage to a company or a cause are likely to increase in 2016."Any organization or group with a polarizing or controversialstanding should be prepared for the possibility of an attack forthe purpose of harm to the organization and/or its constituenc,"the report said.

All such organizations are advised to be prepared to respond to asecurity incident and to rethink their breach response plans todeal with a variety of scenarios, including extortion.

2015 Prediction Scorecard

To hold themselves accountable, last year Experian Data BreachResolution graded its predictions to determine which rang true atthe end of the year. This year the firm did the same, earning anA+ for accurately predicting the persistent and growing threat ofhealthcare breaches. Predictions forecasting how non-maliciousemployee error would constitute companies' biggest threats andthat business leaders would come under increasing scrutiny formanagement of security issues also earned top marks.Predictions concerning an increase in security incidents affectingthe Internet of Things and data in the cloud proved to be lessaccurate, fortunately, although both areas should remain topconcerns for today's enterprises.

The FDA's orders reclassify these medical devices from class II,moderate-risk devices, to class III, high-risk devices, andrequire manufacturers to submit a premarket approval applicationto enhance the safety and effectiveness of surgical mesh used fortransvaginal, or through the vagina, repair of pelvic organprolapse, which is believed to be less invasive than abdominalsurgery.

The mesh is designed to treat conditions where organs in thepelvis, such as the bladder or bowel, drop (or prolapse) fromtheir normal placement and push into the walls of the vagina. Thecondition can occur from muscles stretching during childbirth, orafter a hysterectomy or menopause. Estrogen, which helps withcollagen formation when levels are normal, can contribute toweakening of supportive tissues as levels drop with age or due tosurgery.

The mesh device is also used to treat an associated conditioncalled 'stress incontinence,' which can cause bladder leakage whencoughing, sneezing, laughing or during exercise, again due to lossof muscle strength.

The new FDA directives only apply to mesh used for these twoapplications. Surgical mesh has been used since the 1950s forabdominal hernias, and this use is not affected by these neworders.

Transvaginal uses began in the 1990s, and the mesh was cleared foruse as a class II moderate-risk device in 2002, according to theagency's announcement.

By October 2008, the FDA issued an alert to practitioners that ithad received over one thousand reports of complications from meshmanufacturers over a three year period, which included vaginalerosion, infection, pain, urinary problems, and perforations ofthe bladder, bowel or blood vessels. At that time, ninemanufacturers were making the mesh.

The agency updated its notice to practitioners in July 2011 tospecify that the complications were "not rare," as an additional2,874 complication reports were received in an intervening two-year period.

The agency's update in July 2013 included three deaths associatedwith the mesh implants due to perforations.A November 2014 U.S. Judicial Panel report indicated more than55,000 pending actions at the U.S. District Court level againstsix manufacturers of the device.

Under the new FDA orders, the five manufacturers currentlymarketing this transvaginal device will have 30 months to submit apremarket approval for devices that are already on the market.Manufacturers of new devices must submit a premarket approvalbefore those devices can be approved for marketing. Themanufacturers either declined to comment, or did not immediatelyrespond to requests for comments.

"These stronger clinical requirements will help to address thesignificant risks associated with surgical mesh for repair ofpelvic organ prolapse," William Maisel, M.D., M.P.H., deputydirector of science and chief scientist for the FDA's Center forDevices and Radiological Health, said. "We intend to continuemonitoring how women with this device are faring months and yearsafter surgery through continued postmarket surveillance measures."

Both orders are effective Jan. 5, 2016.

* Mass Tort Litigation Dominated Philadelphia Court in 2015-----------------------------------------------------------Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports thatfrom multimillion-dollar verdicts to the creation of a new masstort program and novel cases going before juries, mass tortlitigation dominated the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in2015.

The year kicked off with the first Risperdal-related case to hittrial in Philadelphia, and a mass tort program being created forthe blood thinner Xarelto.

The Risperdal-related case began in January and ended in a $2.5million award for the plaintiffs the following month. Pledger v.Janssen Pharmaceuticals involved plaintiff Austin Pledger, whotook Risperdal to assist with behavioral symptoms related toautism. He claimed the drug caused him to develop a conditionknown as gynecomastia, which is excessive growth of breast tissuein men and boys.

In the second trial, the case of plaintiff William Cirba, the juryfound that Risperdal was not the cause of the plaintiff's breastgrowth. However, the jury did find that Janssen Pharmaceuticalswas negligent in failing to warn about the potential risk ofRisperdal to cause gynecomastia.

Another case, Walker v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, settled in lateMay on the day opening arguments were scheduled to take place.The third Risperdal case to go to trial, Murray v. JanssenPharmaceuticals, resulted in a $1.75 million award, and anotherjury awarded $500,000 to plaintiff Timothy Stange, the plaintiffin the fourth and final Risperdal case that was heard in 2015.

Plaintiffs in all of the cases argued Janssen had been aware ofthe high risk for gynecomastia, but negligently failed to warn themedical community, and even hid data from the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration.

At the beginning of the year, the court also established a masstort program for Xarelto over claims that the drug causesuncontrollable and sometimes fatal bleeding. Roughly 75 caseswere transferred to the court's Complex Litigation Center inJanuary, which created the mass tort.

According to the plaintiffs' petition for the creation of a masstort, Xarelto was marketed as the "next generation" of bloodthinners in that it does not require monitoring of blood plasmalevels, as its ?counterpart medications do.

Xarelto was approved by the FDA and eventually went on to garner$2 billion in sales nationwide with roughly 1 millionprescriptions written by 2013, two years after the drug'sintroduction into the market, according to the petition.

The plaintiff in a Xarelto-related case originally filed outsidethe mass tort also made novel claims that the drug was ineffectivefor advertised once-daily use.

While counsel for the plaintiff said they were pursuing severaladditional cases on similar claims and other attorneys said theclaims had potential to become a separate mass tort, the case wasrolled into the existing Xarelto mass tort program later in theyear.

But Risperdal and Xarelto were not the only two mass torts thatwere active in 2015.

In August, the makers of Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella agreed to providenearly $56.9 million to establish a settlement program forplaintiffs claiming they suffered arterial blood clots as a resultof taking the birth-control drugs. The agreement covered casespending in Pennsylvania, California and New Jersey.

The court also saw its first case over allegedly defective pelvicmesh go to trial in December. That case, Hammons v. Ethicon,resulted in a $5.5 million compensatory award for the plaintiff,and a $7 million punitive damages award. As of early December,there were 181 pending cases in the pelvic-mesh mass tort.

Mass torts were not the only issues the court tackled in 2015.There were also developments in the ongoing controversy involvingNancy Raynor, a defense attorney sanctioned for more than $1million for eliciting banned testimony.

Ms. Raynor was sanctioned by Philadelphia Court of Common PleasJudge Paul P. Panepinto in late 2014 for drawing a prohibitedreference to smoking from an expert in a lung-cancer-relatedmedical malpractice case, which resulted in a mistrial.

In March, a hearing on the issue descended into chaos, withPanepinto and attorneys handling the case getting into heatedexchanges.

After Judge Panepinto upheld his ruling on appeal, the issue wentto a state Superior Court panel, but in the time leading up to thearguments, Ms. Raynor's personal business assets were targeted forcollection.

The largest verdict to come out of the court in 2015 was $38.5million in punitive damages awarded to the estates of two Kraftemployees who were fatally gunned down by a disgruntled co-worker.The award came about a month after a separate jury awarded theestates more than $8 million.

The first jury found in favor of the estates of LaTonya Brown andTanya Wilson, and against shooter Yvonne Hiller and U.S. SecurityAssociates Inc., the company that provided security at the factorywhere the three worked.

According to the plaintiffs' pretrial memo, Ms. Wilson and Ms.Brown were fatally shot by Ms. Hiller on Sept. 9, 2010, afterMs. Hiller had been suspended from working at the plant. Theplaintiffs contend in the memo that security company officialsknew Ms. Hiller was troubled, but failed to properly escortMs. Hiller to her car after she was suspended. This, according tothe plaintiffs, allowed Hiller to re-enter the plant with a 0.357magnum revolver and kill Ms. Brown and Ms. Wilson.

The memo said that, while the guards should have watchedMs. Hiller as she drove off the premises, she instead drove up toa security post unobserved, surprised the guards and then gainedentry to the facility.

* S.D. Florida Court to Hear Five MDL Cases This Year-----------------------------------------------------Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that manyFlorida attorneys are poised to make national news in 2016 as theytoil away at significant multidistrict litigation, from a caseinvolving the largest auto recall in history to about$1 billion in overdraft fee claims against Wells Fargo.

The Southern District of Florida will kick off the year with fivemultidistrict litigation, or MDL, cases, according to the U.S.Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. And at least one moremight pop up as Colson Hicks Eidson lawyers ask the JPML to choosea South Florida judge to hear breach-of-contract and racketeeringcases against the fantasy sports websites FanDuel and DraftKings.

The JPML consolidates federal cases filed across the country to beheard in one district to streamline discovery and pretrialrulings. Cases that survive the pretrial MDL process are thenremanded to their original districts.

South Florida lawyers and judges are being chosen more often tohandle MDLs as the legal community's reputation improves, saidMiami attorney Scott Wagner, who has worked on about a dozen ofthe consolidated cases.

Plus, the district's caseload has shifted, the Bilzin Sumbergpartner said.

"There's been a downturn in the amount of criminal cases here inthe Southern District of Florida in the last 10, 15 years," hesaid. "The courts have more time to deal with large, complicatedMDLs."

One such MDL is the Takata air bag litigation, in which Mr. Wagnerrepresents Honda defendants accused of colluding with air bagmanufacturer Takata Corp. to hide an alleged defect in the airbags.

Three of the four lead plaintiffs' firms in that case are in SouthFlorida: Podhurst Orseck in Miami, Colson Hicks in Coral Gablesand Boies, Schiller & Flexner, whose Miami office is involvedalong with New York and New Hampshire attorneys.

The case includes personal injury claims filed by 28 peopleallegedly injured by the defective air bags and economic lossclaims from more than 100 drivers whose cars were recalled.

The size of the case and the number of defendants make it standout among other MDLs, said chair lead counsel for the plaintiffs,Peter Prieto of Podhurst Orseck.

"You have close to a dozen defendants, which is kind of unique inan MDL," he said. "You have so many cars involved, which at thispoint are 19 million U.S. cars. The other uniqueness is you haveboth economic loss and personal injury claims. It's usually one orthe other."

The plaintiffs' attorneys are hoping for trial on the economicloss claims sometime in 2017. The coming year will be spent ondiscovery, including foreign discovery involving Japanese andGerman defendants.

"There will be millions of pages of documents to review, and it'sunclear right now how many depositions will be taken," Mr. Prietosaid. "It's safe to say there will be a lot of depositions takenby both sides."

If discovery is substantially completed within the year, theattorneys will also work on motions for class certification, hesaid. The personal injury claimants do not have to be certifiedas a class, and therefore their claims will likely go to trialbefore the economic loss claims.

Mr. Wagner declined to comment on the Takata case.

The Takata case is still in the early stages, unlike anotherSouthern District of Florida MDL that has been chugging alongsince 2009.

Plaintiffs in that case claim their banks re-ordered debit cardand other charges to collect extra overdraft fees. Manydefendants have already settled, including Bank of America, J.P.Morgan Chase and U.S. Bank.

But one of the few remaining defendants, Wells Fargo, will likelymake a big splash in 2016.

"Despite the fact that we've settled about $1.2 billion worth ofcases, that one, if we were successful, it would probably doublethe number," said solo practitioner Bruce Rogow of FortLauderdale, who represents the plaintiffs along with PodhurstOrseck and Kopelowitz Ostrow.

Wells Fargo, which is also defending claims against Wachovia afteracquiring that bank, will also raise interesting questions aboutarbitration in the coming year, Mr. Rogow said.

The bank plans to file a motion to compel arbitration in the case,even though it waived arbitration six years ago, he said. WellsFargo's theory is that class certification led to a whole new setof plaintiffs.

"That's where the battle is going to be: Can a defendant waivearbitration against the named plaintiffs and then try to reviveits failure to have raised it by asserting it against the classafter the class is certified?" Mr. Rogow said.

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman declined to comment.

The other three MDLs in the Southern District of Florida are atvarious stages: the settlement of a false advertising case againstthe makers of Horizon Organic Milk was preliminarily approved in2015, while cases against Chiquita Brands Inc. and the owners of aplane that crashed are plowing through the pretrial process.

A brand-new MDL might join their ranks if Colson Hicks attorneyErvin Gonzalez is successful in asking the JPML to consolidatecases he's involved in and assign them to the Southern District ofFlorida.

At a JMPL hearing Jan. 28 in Fort Myers, Mr. Gonzalez will requestthe district be chosen for cases against FanDuel and DraftKings.

Mr. Gonzalez represents plaintiffs who allege both websites'contests are dominated by people who use algorithms and otherautomated tools to win, an unfair advantage the sites don'tdisclose to other players.

His firm is involved in a handful of MDLs across the country now.The consolidated cases are becoming more prevalent as federaljudges whittle the number of national class actions byinterpreting the rules of civil procedure more conservatively,Mr. Gonzalez said.

The benefit of an MDL is that many cases settle once a bellwethercase has been tried, said Colson Hicks partner Mike Eidson --mike@colson.com -- who has worked on several prominent MDLs.

But MDLs can rankle some lawyers who want to take their owndepositions and try their own cases instead of allowing one leadattorney to do so, Mr. Gonzalez said.

"That can frustrate your traditional trial lawyer who likes to behis own general," he said.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.